Why do some people travel under noms de voyages?
November 8, 2009 1:13 PM Subscribe
Why do people travel under noms de voyages? Is it legal?
As far as I know, it's legal to call yourself anything you want to in common law countries. Is this complicated when travelling in jurisdictions where names have other regulations?
Why did some travellers used to assume alternate names, and what about people who do it now? Is it considered weird? Suspicious? Is it difficult because of the need to have certain things (international flights) booked in your real name? Would immigration mind if you'd used a nom de voyage on tickets but proffered a real passport for them to see? (I think they would, but can't see a logical reason for it.)
So it's impractical on planes, and increasingly in places like hotels, which ask for ID as a condition of travelling or staying with them. What do celebrities, who assume names to avoid publicity, do in these cases — show real ID but have receipts made in another name? Are people generally willing to do this?
When travelling across international borders, personalised ID really just stands in for a token which says: "I am a citizen of x and having obeyed x's laws have permission from my government to travel". It's harder to borrow or sell than a generic token, and it can be replaced if lost. But is it necessary to record it? All it's for is to validate the fact that the bearer should be allowed to cross a border, isn't it? And it has some biometric information (photograph, fingerprints, iris scans) to make sure that it's held by the right bearer.
Do immigration/emigration police authorities collect information on the movements of individuals just because they can? Would people be entitled to move from one country to another if they could (somehow) prove they were in a category authorised to do that without revealing their personal information?
Why do hotels ask for ID (I'm talking about when they photocopy it, not holding it as security against payment)? What do they do with it? Isn't the main point of ID just the same as a name — to have a label to identify you by? Is it that names are printed clearly on ID? I don't see the point of ID other than that it 'looks official', which isn't a point. Companies offer 'novelty ID' which is also pretty clearly designed to look official. What's the idea of 'being who you say you are'? Of course you are, always! Why do people have more trust in cards than they do in the person in front of them?
And wouldn't it be a protection against identity theft be to have a string of different identities? Not to get attached to any of them? Maybe complicated, but maybe not: travellers and wanderers have always called themselves or been called different things at different stages and places. Is it just the intelligence services of governments who like to keep track of what people are doing and where they are? What on earth do they do with all this information? Why do they care?
Does ID actually form any sort of proof — isn't it always just a supporting document? A birth certificate specifically states it is "not proof of identity". But it's usually all you need, with a photograph, to get a passport. Does a passport assert anything other than that someone of a particular name or fingerprint is under the protection of the issuing state?
This is not chat-filter.
As far as I know, it's legal to call yourself anything you want to in common law countries. Is this complicated when travelling in jurisdictions where names have other regulations?
Why did some travellers used to assume alternate names, and what about people who do it now? Is it considered weird? Suspicious? Is it difficult because of the need to have certain things (international flights) booked in your real name? Would immigration mind if you'd used a nom de voyage on tickets but proffered a real passport for them to see? (I think they would, but can't see a logical reason for it.)
So it's impractical on planes, and increasingly in places like hotels, which ask for ID as a condition of travelling or staying with them. What do celebrities, who assume names to avoid publicity, do in these cases — show real ID but have receipts made in another name? Are people generally willing to do this?
When travelling across international borders, personalised ID really just stands in for a token which says: "I am a citizen of x and having obeyed x's laws have permission from my government to travel". It's harder to borrow or sell than a generic token, and it can be replaced if lost. But is it necessary to record it? All it's for is to validate the fact that the bearer should be allowed to cross a border, isn't it? And it has some biometric information (photograph, fingerprints, iris scans) to make sure that it's held by the right bearer.
Do immigration/emigration police authorities collect information on the movements of individuals just because they can? Would people be entitled to move from one country to another if they could (somehow) prove they were in a category authorised to do that without revealing their personal information?
Why do hotels ask for ID (I'm talking about when they photocopy it, not holding it as security against payment)? What do they do with it? Isn't the main point of ID just the same as a name — to have a label to identify you by? Is it that names are printed clearly on ID? I don't see the point of ID other than that it 'looks official', which isn't a point. Companies offer 'novelty ID' which is also pretty clearly designed to look official. What's the idea of 'being who you say you are'? Of course you are, always! Why do people have more trust in cards than they do in the person in front of them?
And wouldn't it be a protection against identity theft be to have a string of different identities? Not to get attached to any of them? Maybe complicated, but maybe not: travellers and wanderers have always called themselves or been called different things at different stages and places. Is it just the intelligence services of governments who like to keep track of what people are doing and where they are? What on earth do they do with all this information? Why do they care?
Does ID actually form any sort of proof — isn't it always just a supporting document? A birth certificate specifically states it is "not proof of identity". But it's usually all you need, with a photograph, to get a passport. Does a passport assert anything other than that someone of a particular name or fingerprint is under the protection of the issuing state?
This is not chat-filter.
This post was deleted for the following reason: there are twenty-seven questions in this question ... if you're not just wanting to talk about the ID thing can you please nail down what exactly you're asking and keep your question to one or two questions? Thanks. -- jessamyn
« Older Help me find this old school game... | Examples, real of fictional, of food being framed... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Rash at 1:36 PM on November 8, 2009