Posted 4:40 PM

Me(Phil(Bob(Kim(1st Law))))

Phil Windley comments today on Bob Blakley's challenge to Kim Cameron's first law (caught that tail yet? Well, have you?). Phil's point is that Bob - like many other people - is lumping in lots of "stuff" that isn't necessarily identity data:

"I think many, but not all, of Bob’s issues with the first law, go away when we start to reclassify data as transactional and reputational, rather than lumping it all in as 'identity'.”

What Phil appears to fail to realize, though, is that it's is possible to aggregate enough transactional or reputational data to create an identifier that is unique within a given context - in short, an identity. It's not a traditional identifier - but it could be linked to traditional identifiers. The same is true of reputational data as well as combinations of the two, or combinations and permutations with descriptive data. It may not amount to an account number, name or biometric factor - but ANY unique to a single individual within a given context is an identifier of that person's identity.