General-purpose definition of the identity of a natural person?

Javan

This is a bit of a nerdy question I think, but is there any general-purpose or generally-accepted definition of the identity of a natural person in law?
By that I mean: What information or attributes of a person might be used to establish identity?

I've had a look on google for any documents that might be relevant and the closest I have come so far is guidance issued by the department of finance in the context of money-laundering legislation. That guidance says:
Identification of a personal customer is the process whereby a designated person obtains from a customer the information necessary for it to identify who the customer is. The identity of an individual has a number of aspects at any point in time, all of which must be obtained by the designated person:
a. name (which may change due to particular events);
b. address (which is likely to change from time to time); and
c. date of birth (which is a constant).
This combination of data elements should be sufficient to identify an individual customer. Other information on an individual accumulates over time e.g., changes in name or address, family circumstances, employment, contacts with the authorities, relationships with other designated persons and physical appearance.

My problem is that that document is just guidance in one specific context, so is there anything in law similar to that guidance?

Thanks in advance.

pirelli

Javan wrote: »

This is a bit of a nerdy question I think, but is there any general-purpose or generally-accepted definition of the identity of a natural person in law?
By that I mean: What information or attributes of a person might be used to establish identity?

I've had a look on google for any documents that might be relevant and the closest I have come so far is guidance issued by the department of finance in the context of money-laundering legislation. That guidance says:
Identification of a personal customer is the process whereby a designated person obtains from a customer the information necessary for it to identify who the customer is. The identity of an individual has a number of aspects at any point in time, all of which must be obtained by the designated person:
a. name (which may change due to particular events);
b. address (which is likely to change from time to time); and
c. date of birth (which is a constant).
This combination of data elements should be sufficient to identify an individual customer. Other information on an individual accumulates over time e.g., changes in name or address, family circumstances, employment, contacts with the authorities, relationships with other designated persons and physical appearance.

My problem is that that document is just guidance in one specific context, so is there anything in law similar to that guidance?

Thanks in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgRCuxA6KMY

pirelli

Javan wrote: »

This is a bit of a nerdy question I think, but is there any general-purpose or generally-accepted definition of the identity of a natural person in law?
By that I mean: What information or attributes of a person might be used to establish identity?

I've had a look on google for any documents that might be relevant and the closest I have come so far is guidance issued by the department of finance in the context of money-laundering legislation. That guidance says:
Identification of a personal customer is the process whereby a designated person obtains from a customer the information necessary for it to identify who the customer is. The identity of an individual has a number of aspects at any point in time, all of which must be obtained by the designated person:
a. name (which may change due to particular events);
b. address (which is likely to change from time to time); and
c. date of birth (which is a constant).
This combination of data elements should be sufficient to identify an individual customer. Other information on an individual accumulates over time e.g., changes in name or address, family circumstances, employment, contacts with the authorities, relationships with other designated persons and physical appearance.

My problem is that that document is just guidance in one specific context, so is there anything in law similar to that guidance?

Thanks in advance.

The last line in bold i think will be most useful.

A term similar to PII, "personal data" is defined in EU directive 95/46/EC, for the purposes of the directive:
Article 2a: 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.

The definition in the Data Protection Acts reads:


“personal data” means data relating to a living individual who is or can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information that is in, or is likely to come into, the possession of the data controller;

http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=m&fn=/documents/guidance/310604.htm


The following data, often used for the express purpose of distinguishing individual identity:

Full name (if not common)
National identification number
IP address (in some cases)
Vehicle registration plate number
Driver's license number
Face, fingerprints, or handwriting
Credit card numbers
Digital identity
Date of birth
Birthplace
Genetic information
The following are less often used to distinguish individual identity, because they are traits shared by many people. However, they are potentially PII, because they may be combined with other personal information to identify an individual.
First or last name, if common
Country, state, or city of residence
Age, especially if non-specific
Gender or race
Name of the school they attend or workplace
Grades, salary, or job position
Criminal record

When a person wishes to remain anonymous, descriptions of them will often employ several of the above, such as "a 34-year-old white male who works at Target". Note that information can still be private, in the sense that a person may not wish for it to become publicly known, without being personally identifiable. Moreover, sometimes multiple pieces of information, none sufficient by itself to uniquely identify an individual, may uniquely identify a person when combined; this is one reason that multiple pieces of evidence are usually presented at criminal trials. It has been shown that, in 1990, 87% of the population of the United States could be uniquely identified by gender, ZIP code, and full date of birth.[2]

WIKIPEDIA LINK
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=personally+identifiable+information+wiki

.

im invisible

Is this 'Natural, of the family Person' or NATURAL PERSON?

Javan

Thanks for that Pirelli.

Personally identifiable information is not quite the same as the concept I am looking for, though it may be related.
The context, while avoiding specifics, is closer to someone trying to back out of a contract on the basis that one party to the contract has a different identity to the original signatories.

Javan

im invisible wrote: »

Is this 'Natural, of the family Person' or NATURAL PERSON?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I'm talking about a natural person (the sort of person that can be given a passport, for example) as opposed to a fictitious person like a corporation.

Javan

Javan wrote: »

The context, while avoiding specifics, is closer to someone trying to back out of a contract on the basis that one party to the contract has a different identity to the original signatories.

Stop right now. Whoever is feeding you that line of UTTER bull**** will land you in horrible trouble. I have seen this routine run in Court as recently as Monday and it DOESN'T work. For your own sake don't be taken in by their meaningless drivel.

Javan

Javan wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I'm talking about a natural person (the sort of person that can be given a passport, for example) as opposed to a fictitious person like a corporation.

Ok you really need to take this on board: you cannot get out of a contract because you try and say that somehow it wasn't you but a legal fiction or corporation that entered into it. That's not how contracts work and the people who try and tell you otherwise are lying to you. It's a barefaced lie and it's dangerous to listen to them. Genuinely.

Javan

Woah! step back a second there Kayroo!
I'm not in any trouble and I wont be (well, not related to this anyway). I know it is a bad argument.

I'm not going to get drawn into specifics, which is why I put the question in such an abstract form initially, but rest assured that I definitely do not want to make any ridiculous arguments.

benway

Deleted User wrote:

I have seen this routine run in Court as recently as Monday and it DOESN'T work.

Say it ain't so? Where?

But, to be fair, I was kinda thinking that this seems a bit too subtle to fit the usual Fremen modus operandi.

OP, if this is actually a serious question, a natural person is a human being. Can be identified in many ways, including by way of documentation, such as passports, or identification to the Court by a witness or other qualified person. There's no standard definition, that I'm aware of, except as by juxtaposition against legal or corporate persons, because if the law was to waste time picking through such self-evident concepts, no real work would be done. Must check Black's Law Dictionary...

Javan

Javan wrote: »

Woah! step back a second there Kayroo!
I'm not in any trouble and I wont be (well, not related to this anyway). I know it is a bad argument.

I'm not going to get drawn into specifics, which is why I put the question in such an abstract form initially, but rest assured that I definitely do not want to make any ridiculous arguments.

Sorry mate but when you said:

The context, while avoiding specifics, is closer to someone trying to back out of a contract on the basis that one party to the contract has a different identity to the original signatories

It tends to immediately evoke the Freeman position which is the legal equivalent of saying that you didn't do your homework because the fairies took you to Neverland overnight and you were too busy fighting Capt. Hook to finish your Shakespeare essay.

If I was somewhat vociferous in my warnings it is only because I have seen what these people do. A crowd of them egging on the only person with anything to lose and continuing to egg him on when he has lost and had costs awarded against him and then advising him to allow another motion of their instigation, doomed to failure, to run another day just to satisfy their own petty timewasting exercises.



If it's an actual company law matter then speak to a solicitor. Quite often contractual interpretation is a tricky business and a single consultation with the right solicitor should quickly resolve any meaningful queries.

benway

benway wrote: »

Say it ain't so? Where?

But, to be fair, I was kinda thinking that this seems a bit too subtle to fit the usual Fremen modus operandi.

In the High Court, Chancery List. I couldn't believe my eyes to be honest. It's spreading from the District Courts quickly.

benway

Christ. Murphy or Laffoy? Was in both Courts for a while, slightly disappointed to have missed it. Kinda wish Lavan was still around to deal with these guys.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok you really need to take this on board: you cannot get out of a contract because you try and say that somehow it wasn't you but a legal fiction or corporation that entered into it. That's not how contracts work and the people who try and tell you otherwise are lying to you. It's a barefaced lie and it's dangerous to listen to them. Genuinely.

benway wrote: »

Say it ain't so? Where?

But, to be fair, I was kinda thinking that this seems a bit too subtle to fit the usual Fremen modus operandi.
..

Tsk! Tsk!

I pity those poor Freeman in front of the courts! It won't be long before citizens are wrongfully labelled as Freman and suffer some form of ill treatment from the sitting court. I pray this doesn't happen.

You should not have to declare yourself a non Freman in order to proceed.

benway

benway wrote: »

Christ. Murphy or Laffoy? Was in both Courts for a while, slightly disappointed to have missed it. Kinda wish Lavan was still around to deal with these guys.

Judge Murphy. I didn't see all of it but heard the highlights. Absolutely insane stuff by all accounts.

Javan

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry mate but when you said:



It tends to immediately evoke the Freeman position which is the legal equivalent of saying that you didn't do your homework because the fairies took you to Neverland overnight and you were too busy fighting Capt. Hook to finish your Shakespeare essay.

If I was somewhat vociferous in my warnings it is only because I have seen what these people do. A crowd of them egging on the only person with anything to lose and continuing to egg him on when he has lost and had costs awarded against him and then advising him to allow another motion of their instigation, doomed to failure, to run another day just to satisfy their own petty timewasting exercises.



If it's an actual company law matter then speak to a solicitor. Quite often contractual interpretation is a tricky business and a single consultation with the right solicitor should quickly resolve any meaningful queries.

Thanks again Kayroo.

There are solicitors involved. Unfortunately so far the absurd argument is winning and I can't for the life of me understand why, because it is so clearly an absurd argument.

I'm clutching at straws to understand what I am hearing from the legal professionals. I thought that if there was a good, general definition of the identity of a natural person in law then reading it might help me understand.

Javan

Javan wrote: »

Thanks again Kayroo.

There are solicitors involved. Unfortunately so far the absurd argument is winning and I can't for the life of me understand why, because it is so clearly an absurd argument.

I'm clutching at straws to understand what I am hearing from the legal professionals. I thought that if there was a good, general definition of the identity of a natural person in law then reading it might help me understand.

It's a self-evident concept. If it's a person that you can physically reach across the table and touch then it's a natural person. If it's a company it will be registered somewhere with an appropriate companies register and that will be easily provable. I'm honestly a little confused as to what situation could arise that would be so confusing unless a person registered a company in their own name like "Javan Limited" and traded under the name Javan, for example, which might give rise to some confusion but if they were signing as the company they would need to have done so explicitly and that would be evident from the contract itself in the definition of the parties.

Javan

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a self-evident concept. If it's a person that you can physically reach across the table and touch then it's a natural person. If it's a company it will be registered somewhere with an appropriate companies register and that will be easily provable. I'm honestly a little confused as to what situation could arise that would be so confusing unless a person registered a company in their own name like "Javan Limited" and traded under the name Javan, for example, which might give rise to some confusion but if they were signing as the company they would need to have done so explicitly and that would be evident from the contract itself in the definition of the parties.

I really can't give any more detail about it except to say that there is nothing like a single-member limited company (or partnership, sole trader business or any other complication of that nature).

I don't know yet if it will get to court. That depends on professional advice coming soon. If it does get to court I'm sure you'll hear about it.

benway

Deleted User wrote: »

Judge Murphy. I didn't see all of it but heard the highlights. Absolutely insane stuff by all accounts.

Had a mate who was in there for the day, must ask him about it. Can't believe I missed it.

pirelli wrote: »

Tsk! Tsk!

I pity those poor Freeman in front of the courts! It won't be long before citizens are wrongfully labelled as Freman and suffer some form of ill treatment from the sitting court. I pray this doesn't happen.

You should not have to declare yourself a non Freman in order to proceed.

Here. Nobody's ill-treating anyone, if you stick within the bounds of rationality and respect the law as it stands, you'll get a fair hearing before the Courts. You may not get the decision you'd like, but you'll get every chance to put forward your case. Citizens won't be labelled as Fremen if they don't start spouting Fremenism, simple as.

OP, can you identify the person who signed the contract with you? By sight, telephone number, email address, physical address, or any other criterion you can definitively tie to him/her, the likes of the stuff Pirelli posted earlier? I don't see how the concept of a "natural person" even relates, to be honest.

Victor

Javan wrote: »

The context, while avoiding specifics, is closer to someone trying to back out of a contract on the basis that one party to the contract has a different identity to the original signatories.

If you mean for example 4 friends booked an apartment for a sun holiday and they all signed for it, but now Tom is saying "Well, I'm not Tom, my name is Thomas, someone called Tom signed that, not me", then he is likely to lose both in court and in friendship.

Javan

Javan wrote: »

I really can't give any more detail about it except to say that there is nothing like a single-member limited company (or partnership, sole trader business or any other complication of that nature).

I don't know yet if it will get to court. That depends on professional advice coming soon. If it does get to court I'm sure you'll hear about it.

Sounds bizarre to me but without facts it's tough to get a line on it. I obviously hope I never hear about it and coolers heads prevail for everyone's sake. Best of luck anyway.

Javan

benway wrote: »

OP, can you identify the person who signed the contract with you? By sight, telephone number, email address, physical address, or any other criterion you can definitively tie to him/her, the likes of the stuff Pirelli posted earlier? I don't see how the concept of a "natural person" even relates, to be honest.

Benway,

Yes. It is weird and impossible to understand. Everyone sitting around the table (metaphorically speaking) agrees that the people there are the same people that entered into the contract, but they are still making the argument about identity.

It is a purely technical argument, not grounded in any common sense.

Anyway; I'm in danger of saying something I shouldn't, so I'll shut up now. From your responses it seems that there is no definition like the one I am looking for because the concept is, as Kayroo said, self-evident.

pirelli

Javan wrote: »

Benway,

Yes. It is weird and impossible to understand. Everyone sitting around the table (metaphorically speaking) agrees that the people there are the same people that entered into the contract, but they are still making the argument about identity.

It is a purely technical argument, not grounded in any common sense.

Anyway; I'm in danger of saying something I shouldn't, so I'll shut up now. From your responses it seems that there is no definition like the one I am looking for because the concept is, as Kayroo said, self-evident.

May i at this point suggest you talk to a solicitor.

pirelli

benway wrote: »

Had a mate who was in there for the day, must ask him about it. Can't believe I missed it.

Here. Nobody's ill-treating anyone, if you stick within the bounds of rationality and respect the law as it stands, you'll get a fair hearing before the Courts. You may not get the decision you'd like, but you'll get every chance to put forward your case. Citizens won't be labelled as Fremen if they don't start spouting Fremenism, simple as.

OP, can you identify the person who signed the contract with you? By sight, telephone number, email address, physical address, or any other criterion you can definitively tie to him/her, the likes of the stuff Pirelli posted earlier? I don't see how the concept of a "natural person" even relates, to be honest.

Here! Past tense, present tense and future tense.

If you post rationally and respect the laws of grammar in my post so i can at least concur with you.

I said sometime in the future it will happen. It has already happened on a minor level today on this thread.

Javan

One more related question: Can you point me to any published judgements in Irish court that involved a freeman or strawman argument?
I've tried searching the court service website but can't find anything there.

Thanks again.

benway

No Irish judgment, there are newspaper reports - this stuff is relatively new, it generally arises, and is dismissed out of hand because it's patently nonsense, in the lower courts. There is a recent Canadian decision taking the whole thing down. The topic has been done to death here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056353782&page=32

Pirelli, I don't blame Kayroo for reacting as he/she did with how prevalent this stuff is getting - any talk of natural or legal personhood is likely to raise suspicions that some Fremen trolling is going on. When OP explained further, everyone was more than accommodating. Disagreeing or correcting someone on here over an error of law doesn't equate to ill-treatment, even on a minor level.

Personally, I don't think anyone's likely to be ill-treated on the basis of "being a Fremen", they are likely to land themselves in hot water because of their delusional attitude towards the legal system, though. I feel for those who have been suckered in, but I do hope that most of them will figure out that it's nonsense before becoming too deeply involved.

Javan

benway wrote: »

No Irish judgment, there are newspaper reports - this stuff is relatively new, it generally arises, and is dismissed out of hand because it's patently nonsense, in the lower courts. There is a recent Canadian decision taking the whole thing down. The topic has been done to death here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056353782&page=32

Pirelli, I don't blame Kayroo for reacting as he/she did with how prevalent this stuff is getting - any talk of natural or legal personhood is likely to raise suspicions that some Fremen trolling is going on. When OP explained further, everyone was more than accommodating. Disagreeing or correcting someone on here over an error of law doesn't equate to ill-treatment, even on a minor level.

Personally, I don't think anyone's likely to be ill-treated on the basis of "being a Fremen", they are likely to land themselves in hot water because of their delusional attitude towards the legal system, though. I feel for those who have been suckered in, but I do hope that most of them will figure out that it's nonsense before becoming too deeply involved.

Cheers Benway, I'll read that thread and associated stuff this evening.

FWIW: I never felt ill-treated by Kayroo or anyone else here. I appreciate that I gave the wrong impression, and think Kayroo responded appropriately to the troll he thought I was.

pirelli

benway wrote: »

Disagreeing or correcting someone on here over an error of law doesn't equate to ill-treatment, even on a minor level.
.

I never said it did.

Javan wrote: »

Cheers Benway, I'll read that thread and associated stuff this evening.

FWIW: I never felt ill-treated by Kayroo or anyone else here. I appreciate that I gave the wrong impression, and think Kayroo responded appropriately to the troll he thought I was.

Your question was a little confusing and i did momentarily think you were a troll like species..now i can you see your just one of them.