Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:16:46 -0500
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Your Papers, Please
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

>StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL 11/05/03 12:52PM
>	Keith Lynch objects to being required to show ID for many purposes
>and suggests that only the second person claiming to be Person X be =
required
>to show ID.

Technically no.  Just to prove that they are who they claim to be.  =
Identification by someone known to the committe would be fine.

>In the best case, this merely transfers the burden of showing
>ID from the first person to the second person.  If you are always the =
first
>person, you might gain from such a rule, but the community of persons =
does
>not gain.  At the typical con, this rule would certainly benefit "morning
>people" at the expense of "evening people."  Moreover, the proposed rule
>imposes a requirement on the register to realize that Person "2" is =
claiming
>a duplicate identity and challenge "2" instead of all, so the proposed =
rule
>increases the burden on the community.  Further, the proposed rule does =
not
>actually bar undesirable persons (e.g. freeriders at cons, potential
>terrorists at airports) from the function in question.  Unscrupulous =
people
>would quickly learn to be the first in line at the expense of legitimate
>attendees.
>	Given the nature of the world today, I believe that the process of
>offering identification will be with us for some time to come.

The need for some sort of "proof you are who you claim to be" is not so =
much who the world is today, but rather making sure the right badge goes =
to the right person.

Arriving with a recent mailing from the con generally indicates you =
probably received it.

mjw