Latest / Logosofia no Dia a Dia / Can the Law Give You a Second Name for Privacy?
Transcript
- [Prompt] custom: At most jurisdictions, it is the legal requirement to have one name. The only typical exception or | Hosts: corn, herman [Response] Corn: Daniel sent us this one — and I have to say, it's the kind of question that sounds like a legal curiosity until you sit with it for thirty seconds and realize it's actually about something much bigger. He's asking whether any country in the world legally protects your right to hold multiple first names, or to use an alias or artistic name that has some kind of official standing — not just a nickname, not just a stage name you scribble on a napkin, but something the law actually recognizes. And he's asking specifically in the context of privacy. If you wanted to operate under a second name to protect yourself from being found, tracked, doxxed — does any legal system give you that tool? Herman: The instinctive answer most people would give is "sure, performers do this all the time." But that's not what Daniel's asking. A stage name isn't a legal identity. You can't put "Lady Gaga" on a passport application. The question is whether there's any jurisdiction where the law says you may hold two first names — or a recognized alias — and grants that second identity some kind of legitimacy, even if it's not the name you use to sign a mortgage. Corn: And the reason this matters now, in a way it didn't twenty years ago, is that we're living through this strange moment where the state demands a single, fixed, traceable identity at the exact same time that the internet has made having a single, fixed, traceable identity genuinely dangerous for a lot of people. Doxxing, stalking, harassment — the ability to legally operate under more than one name has gone from a performer's perk to a privacy strategy. And the law hasn't caught up. Herman: It's a tension that's only going to get sharper. In common law countries — the US, the UK, Canada, Australia — your legal name is whatever you consistently use and intend to be known by. There's no single statute that says "this is your name." It's established through usage. But in practice, you're expected to have exactly one of them, and every institution from the DMV to your bank will demand that one name matches across every document. The only widespread exception almost every jurisdiction accepts is the married name. A woman can keep her maiden name alongside her married surname, or hyphenate, or use one professionally and the other legally. That exception exists almost everywhere. Corn: That exception is revealing, isn't it? Because it's not about the individual's privacy or autonomy. It's about the state wanting to track a social institution. Marriage is something the government has an interest in recording, so the name flexibility is a byproduct of that tracking. There's no equivalent carve-out for "I don't want my abusive ex to find me" or "I'm a writer who publishes under a pseudonym and I'd like that pseudonym to have some legal standing. Herman: Most people assume that if you want a second name, you can just use a DBA — a "doing business as" registration. In the US, you walk into a county clerk's office, file a form, pay a small fee, and now you can open a bank account under "Corn's Leaf Medicine Emporium." But a DBA is a commercial registration. It doesn't change your legal name. It doesn't give you a second identity. It's a disclosure, not a shield. In California, it's governed by the Business and Professions Code, section 17900 — and the whole point is to make sure the public knows who's behind the business name. It's the opposite of privacy. Corn: If I register "Cornelius Slothson" as a DBA and start handing out business cards with that name, I haven't created a privacy-protective alias. I've created a public record that links my real name to my fake name and filed it with the county. Herman: You've built a paper trail straight back to yourself. Corn: Which brings us to the actual question. Are there countries that have built something different? A legal mechanism that says — yes, you can have a second name, and yes, the law will recognize it, and no, it's not just for performers or married women or businesses. Daniel mentioned privacy-protective purposes specifically. Is there anywhere on earth where the law treats name multiplicity as a legitimate privacy tool rather than a problem to be solved? Herman: There are a few places that have taken steps in this direction — not many, and none of them have fully solved the problem — but the mechanisms they've built are interesting. Sweden, Germany, Japan. Each of them approaches the question from a completely different angle, and each reveals something about what's possible and what's still missing. Corn: Israel, where Daniel lives, has its own wrinkles on this. The Name Law here — passed in 1956, amended several times since — requires every person to have one first name and one family name. You can change your name through the Ministry of Interior, but you can't hold two simultaneously. The only exception is for new immigrants, who can register a Hebrew name alongside their original name during the aliyah process. That's a practical concession, not a privacy right. Herman: Which is a pattern we're going to see everywhere. When the law bends on names, it's almost always for administrative convenience or to accommodate some institution the state cares about — immigration, marriage, commerce. Privacy almost never makes the list. Corn: Let's go looking for the exceptions. Daniel's asking whether the law anywhere treats the right to a second name as something worth protecting. And I think the short answer is — yes, in fragments, for different reasons, with different limits. But the long answer is more interesting, because it tells us something about what the law thinks a name is for, and whether that's still the right answer in 2026. Herman: Let's start with what "legal name" actually means, because it's one of those phrases everyone uses and almost nobody defines. In common law systems, your legal name is whatever you consistently use and intend to be known by. There's no central registry. There's no statute that says "this person's name is X." It's established through usage and reputation. You can change it just by starting to use a new one, as long as you're not doing it to defraud anyone. Corn: Which sounds wonderfully flexible until you try to get a passport. Herman: Because even though the common law doesn't require a single fixed name, the administrative state absolutely does. Every institution you interact with — banks, the DMV, Social Security, the TSA — demands that the name on your documents matches, and that it's one name. So in practice, you have exactly one legal name, not because the law says so, but because the infrastructure says so. Corn: Civil law systems are even more rigid. In countries like France, Germany, and Israel, your name is registered at birth with the civil registry, and changing it requires a formal application, a government decision, and usually a showing of good cause. In France, you have to demonstrate a "legitimate interest" to change your name, and the concept of holding two simultaneously is essentially foreign to the system. Herman: Which brings us to the married-name exception, because it's the one place where almost every legal system on earth says "fine, you can have two." In common law, a woman can take her husband's surname while keeping her maiden name for professional purposes — or hyphenate — and both are recognized. In civil law countries like Germany, the law explicitly provides for this. In Israel, the Name Law was amended to allow a married person to continue using their previous surname alongside the new one. Corn: The reason this exception is so universal isn't because lawmakers around the world independently decided that name flexibility is a human right. It's because marriage is an institution the state wants to track. The state has an interest in knowing who's married to whom, who inherits from whom, who's responsible for whom. The name flexibility is a side effect of that tracking interest, not a privacy protection. If I want a second name because I'm a domestic violence survivor trying to escape a stalker, there's no institutional hook. The state doesn't have a pre-existing interest in tracking my safety needs the way it tracks my marital status. So the law shrugs. Herman: That's the gap Daniel's question sits inside. He's not asking about nicknames or stage names or DBAs. He's asking whether any jurisdiction has created a legal mechanism that says — you can have a second name, and the law will recognize it, and the purpose of that recognition is to protect your privacy. Not to track a marriage, not to register a business, not to accommodate an immigrant's transition. Privacy as the primary rationale. Corn: The answer, as we said, is yes — in fragments. Sweden, Germany, Japan. Each has built something that points in this direction, even if none has fully arrived. Let's start with the US, because it's where most listeners are and it most clearly demonstrates the gap between what people think they can do and what the law actually allows. The DBA is the mechanism everyone reaches for. But as we said, it's a commercial disclosure statute — a transparency tool. It doesn't change your legal name for anything that matters — contracts, taxes, identity documents. You can't put your DBA on a passport. You can't use it to rent an apartment without also disclosing your legal name. It's a commercial convenience, not a second identity. Herman: Which brings us to Germany, because Germany has actually built something different — the Künstlername, the artist name. Under the Personenstandsgesetz, section 11a, a performer can register a professional alias that appears on their identity documents alongside their legal name. It's an official designation. But the requirements are strict. You have to prove you're actually engaged in artistic activity — published works, performance history, contracts, reviews. The Standesamt reviews your application and decides whether you qualify. If you're a novelist who publishes under a pseudonym, you can get that pseudonym on your ID. But if you're just someone who wants a second name for privacy and you don't happen to have a portfolio of published novels, the door is closed. Corn: Germany has created a mechanism for name multiplicity, but it's tied to a specific professional category. It's not a privacy right. It's an accommodation for artists whose careers depend on name recognition. The law is protecting the commercial value of the alias, not the privacy value. A best-selling author can get a Künstlername. A domestic violence survivor who wants to use a different name on a rental agreement cannot — unless she also happens to have a published novel, which is a bizarre hoop to have to jump through. Herman: Now Sweden — Sweden is the one that actually comes closest to what Daniel's asking about. In 2017, Sweden reformed its name law, and the change was quietly radical. Any Swedish citizen can now register up to three given names through the Swedish Tax Agency. No justification needed. No artistic profession. You fill out an online application, and you can add a second or third first name to your official identity. And here's the key — you can designate any of those names as your tilltalsnamn, your courtesy name, the one you actually use in daily life. Corn: This is the mechanism that makes Sweden unique. In most countries, if you have multiple given names — like "John Paul" — one of them is your first name and the others are middle names. They're not interchangeable. In Sweden, the tilltalsnamn can be any of your registered given names, and you can switch which one you use as easily as updating your registration. It's not a nickname. It's not a DBA. It's your legal name, and you have more than one of them. Herman: The privacy implications are significant. If your legal name is Anna Maria Johansson and your tilltalsnamn is Maria, you can use Maria Johansson on your bank account, your rental agreement, your employment contract — and Anna never appears. Someone searching for Anna Johansson won't find you through those records. It's not untraceable — the Tax Agency still knows both names — but it creates practical separation in daily life. Corn: That's the tradeoff we keep seeing. Every one of these systems creates a link in a government database. In Sweden, the Tax Agency knows that Anna Maria Johansson and Maria Johansson are the same person. In Germany, the Standesamt knows the connection between your legal name and your Künstlername. The link exists. The question is whether it's practically accessible to the people you're trying to avoid. Herman: Japan's system is different from both, and it's worth understanding why. Under Article 19-3 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, foreign residents can register a tsūshōmei — a commonly used alias — on their residence card. You have to demonstrate that you actually use this name in daily life — utility bills, employment records, rental agreements. If you can show consistent usage, the alias goes on your card alongside your legal name. Corn: This isn't a privacy tool for Japanese citizens. It's a practical concession for foreigners whose names don't fit neatly into Japanese administrative systems. If your legal name is long, or uses characters that don't exist in Japanese, or is hard for Japanese speakers to pronounce, you can register a simplified alias. It's an accommodation for the convenience of the system, not a right for the individual. Japanese citizens can't register a tsūshōmei. It's the same pattern we saw with Israel's immigrant name exception — the law bends when it serves administrative convenience, not when it serves individual privacy. Herman: We've got three models. The US DBA, which is a commercial disclosure that creates a public paper trail. Germany's Künstlername, which is tied to artistic profession and reviewed by a civil registry. Sweden's multiple given names, which is general-purpose but still creates a database link. And Japan's tsūshōmei, which is a practical concession for foreigners. None of them is a privacy alias in the sense Daniel's asking about — a legally recognized second name that is untraceable to the first. Corn: That word "untraceable" is where every existing system hits a wall. Because the state always wants to know. The Tax Agency, the Standesamt, the Immigration Bureau — they all maintain the connection. The question is who else can access it. And that's where the knock-on effect get interesting. Sweden's 2017 reform wasn't designed as a privacy law — it was sold as a modernization of outdated naming rules. But almost immediately, people started using it for exactly the privacy-protective purpose Daniel's asking about. I came across a case — a woman in Stockholm who'd been stalked by an ex-partner for years. She used the new law to add a third given name, then opened a bank account and signed a rental agreement under that new name, while keeping her original name on existing obligations. The stalker couldn't find her new address because it wasn't linked to the name he knew. Herman: That's a use case the lawmakers never explicitly anticipated. And it worked — but only because Sweden's system makes the tilltalsnamn functionally independent in daily transactions. The Tax Agency still knows both names are hers. If the stalker had a contact inside the Tax Agency, or if a court ordered the records released, the link would surface. But for practical, everyday privacy — keeping your address out of searchable databases, breaking the trail that a determined harasser can follow — it's effective. Corn: Contrast that with New Zealand's approach. New Zealand has name suppression orders under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, sections 200 through 211. A court can order that a person's name not be published, effectively allowing them to operate under a suppressed identity in public proceedings. But these orders are temporary, they're tied to specific criminal cases, and they're not a general right to a second name. Once the order expires, the protection evaporates. It's a judicial remedy, not a civil right. Sweden's approach is structural — change the name registration system and the privacy benefit flows automatically. New Zealand's is case-by-case, which means gaps everywhere. Herman: Which brings us to the uncomfortable practical reality. No jurisdiction on earth currently offers what you'd call a true privacy alias — a second name that is legally recognized for daily use and untraceable to the original. Every system creates a link in a government database. In the US, if you do a legal name change to escape a stalker and then file a DBA for your old name to keep receiving mail, you've created a public court record of the change and a public commercial filing of the DBA — both searchable. The California DBA statute is practically a how-to guide for leaving a paper trail. You file with the county clerk. The filing is public. Some counties put it online. You've just announced to the world that Jane Doe is now doing business as Jane Smith. That's not privacy — that's a breadcrumb trail. Corn: The question becomes — is there a way out of this? A system that gives you a legally usable second name without the state maintaining a subpoena-able link back to the first? And that's where something new has entered the conversation. Herman: The EU's eIDAS 2.Regulation 2024/1183, effective May of this year. It introduces something called "qualified electronic attestation of attributes." The idea is that a trusted issuer — a government agency, a bank, an employer — can cryptographically attest that a person possesses a certain attribute without revealing the person's underlying identity data. You could prove you're over eighteen without revealing your birth date. You could prove you're a licensed physician without revealing your name. Corn: The logical extension — though it's not in the regulation yet — is that you could prove you are the person authorized to use a particular alias without revealing your legal name. The attestation says "the holder of this credential is authorized to use the name 'Maria Johansson' for contractual purposes" and the relying party never sees "Anna." The cryptographic proof is enough. Herman: This is the first time a major regulatory framework has created the technical infrastructure for a privacy alias that doesn't depend on hiding the database link — because the link never exists in the transaction. The attestation is a zero-knowledge-style proof. The verifier gets exactly the information they need and nothing else. Whether any member state actually implements it that way is a different question. But the architecture is now in place. Corn: It's worth comparing this to the married-name exception one more time, because the contrast explains why privacy aliases have been so hard to achieve politically. The married-name exception is universal because it's tied to an institution the state actively wants to track. Marriage creates inheritance rights, tax obligations, next-of-kin status. The state has a direct administrative interest in knowing who's married to whom, so the name flexibility is a byproduct of that tracking. A privacy alias has no equivalent institutional hook. There's no government agency whose core mission depends on knowing that you're using a different name to avoid a stalker. So the political will to build the infrastructure never materializes. Herman: That's the barrier. Not technical feasibility — we now have the cryptographic tools. Not legal impossibility — Sweden proved you can do this with a simple online form. The barrier is that privacy, as a rationale, doesn't have an institutional champion inside the state the way marriage does, the way commerce does, the way immigration does. Until that changes, we're going to keep getting fragments — a Swedish reform here, a German artist exception there — but not the comprehensive privacy alias Daniel's actually asking about. Corn: Where does that leave someone who actually wants to use multiple names for privacy right now, today, with the laws we actually have? The practical answer is — it depends on where you live, and in most places the answer is "you can't, not really." But there are paths worth mapping. Herman: If you want a legally recognized second name for privacy purposes, and you're not an artist or an immigrant or a married person, Sweden is the only jurisdiction that offers a general-purpose path. You register up to three given names through the Swedish Tax Agency — online application, small fee, no justification required — and then you designate one as your tilltalsnamn. That's the name you use on bank accounts, rental agreements, employment contracts. The other names sit on your official record but don't appear in daily transactions. The catch is that you have to be a Swedish resident. You need a personnummer to apply. So if you're sitting in Chicago or Tel Aviv thinking "great, I'll just file a Swedish name application," it doesn't work that way. Corn: In the United States, the closest you can get is a legal name change followed by a DBA for your old name. And I want to walk through this because it's the strategy people sometimes suggest in privacy forums, and it's important to understand exactly how flawed it is. You go to court, you legally change your name from Jane Doe to Jane Smith. The court order is a public record — that's problem number one. Then you file a DBA — "Jane Smith doing business as Jane Doe" — so that mail addressed to your old name still reaches you. The DBA filing is also public — problem number two. You've now created two public records linking your old name to your new name, and anyone who knows to look can find both. It's privacy theater. The only scenario where this makes sense is if your goal isn't to hide from a determined searcher but to create enough friction that casual lookups fail. And for some people, that's actually enough — the ex who occasionally Googles you but isn't going to pull court records. But it's not the robust privacy protection Daniel's asking about. Herman: It's worth saying explicitly, because this misconception is everywhere — a DBA is not an identity document. You cannot use a DBA to get a driver's license. You cannot use it to file taxes. You cannot use it to board a plane. It is a commercial registration that lets you open a business bank account and sign business contracts. That's it. Treating it as a second legal name is like treating a library card as a passport. Corn: What can someone actually do, short of moving to Sweden? The most practical step — and this is where the advocacy angle comes in — is to push for what you might call a privacy alias framework in your own jurisdiction. And Sweden's model is the obvious starting point, not because it's perfect but because it's simple. You don't need a new bureaucracy. You don't need a court process. You just need the existing civil registry to allow multiple given names and to let people designate which one appears on which documents. Herman: The key improvement, and this is where eIDAS 2.0 becomes relevant, would be stronger database separation. Sweden's system works for practical privacy, but the Tax Agency still holds the master link. A privacy alias system built from scratch could use the qualified electronic attestation framework to issue credentials that prove you're authorized to use a particular name without exposing the underlying identity data. The verifier — the bank, the landlord, the employer — gets cryptographic proof that the alias is valid, but never sees the legal name it's linked to. Corn: This isn't science fiction. The regulation is already in effect. The technical infrastructure exists. What's missing is a member state willing to implement it for this specific purpose. The attestation framework was designed for things like proving your age or your professional qualifications — but the same mechanism can attest to a name. "The holder of this credential is authorized to use the name Maria Johansson." That's it. That's the whole transaction. Herman: The political barrier, as we said, is that no government agency has "privacy alias infrastructure" in its mission statement. But there's a way to frame this that might actually get traction — and it connects back to something Sweden stumbled into without planning it. Domestic violence protection. The safety of public figures who face harassment. These are things legislatures actually care about, and they're use cases where the current system is visibly failing. Corn: If you're writing to your representative about this — and I'm serious, this is the kind of thing where a well-framed letter from a constituent can actually land on a staffer's desk and spark something — the pitch isn't "I want a cool pseudonym." The pitch is "Sweden has a system that lets domestic violence survivors open bank accounts and sign leases under a name their abuser doesn't know, and we don't." That's a concrete, solvable problem with an existing model to point to. Herman: The eIDAS angle gives it a technical credibility that most privacy proposals lack. You're not asking for a new untested system. You're asking to use an existing regulatory framework — one that's already been passed, already been implemented, already has cryptographic standards — and apply it to a use case the framework was practically built for. The attestation of attributes was designed to let you prove something about yourself without revealing everything about yourself. A name is an attribute. Corn: The one thing I'd caution against is expecting any of this to happen quickly. The married-name exception took centuries to become universal, and it had the entire institution of marriage pushing it forward. A privacy alias has no equivalent institutional engine. The best case is probably a handful of jurisdictions — Sweden expanding its system, maybe an EU member state piloting an eIDAS-based alias credential, maybe a US state experimenting with sealed name change records — and then a slow diffusion as the use cases become impossible to ignore. Herman: The use cases are already impossible to ignore. They just haven't been connected to this specific legal mechanism yet. Every high-profile doxxing case, every stalking victim who had to move cities because the legal name system made them findable, every whistleblower who couldn't publish under a protected alias — these are all failures of the single-name assumption. The question is when, not whether, some jurisdiction connects those dots and builds the thing. Corn: That "when" question is really the one I want to leave hanging. Because something is shifting right now that makes this more urgent than it was even five years ago. The EU Digital Identity Wallet is rolling out under eIDAS 2.0 as we speak. Member states are building the infrastructure. And the design decisions being made right now — this year — are going to determine whether that wallet becomes a tool for privacy-preserving aliases or a tool for locking every European citizen into a single, cryptographically hardened, unforgeable digital name that follows them everywhere. Herman: That's the fork in the road. The same regulation that creates qualified electronic attestation of attributes — which could let you prove you're authorized to use an alias without revealing your legal name — also creates the framework for a digital identity that's more persistent and more traceable than anything we've ever had. The technology is neutral. The implementation isn't. And the default, if nobody pushes for the privacy-preserving version, is almost certainly the single-identity version. Governments like knowing who you are. Banks like knowing who you are. The entire administrative apparatus is built on the assumption of one person, one name, one record. The attestation framework is the exception — it requires someone to actively decide to use it for alias protection. If nobody makes that case, the wallet just becomes a very efficient way to ensure that your legal name is attached to every transaction you ever make. Corn: The open question Daniel's prompt leaves us with is live. Will the rollout of digital identity systems create new opportunities for privacy-preserving aliases, or will it lock us into a single legal name forever? The technical capacity exists for either outcome. The legal pathways exist — Sweden proved the model, eIDAS 2.0 provides the architecture. What's missing is the political decision to connect them. Herman: The jurisdictions that make that decision first — whether it's Sweden expanding its name law, or Estonia building alias attestation into its digital ID, or some country we're not even watching — they're going to set the template. The first government that says "yes, you can have a legally recognized privacy alias, and here's how it works cryptographically" will define what the rest of the world eventually adopts. Because once the model exists and people are using it safely, the argument against it collapses. Corn: The tension between the state's need for a single identity and the individual's need for privacy isn't going away. If anything, it's going to intensify as both surveillance capabilities and harassment risks increase. The single-name assumption is a relic of a world where most people lived in one place, dealt with one set of institutions, and faced threats that were mostly physical and local. That world is gone. The legal infrastructure just hasn't noticed yet. Herman: Now — Hilbert's daily fun fact. Hilbert: In 1952, British colonial administrators in Eritrea briefly recorded Emperor Haile Selassie as the rightful sovereign of the territory in an internal governance memo — a misattribution that was corrected three weeks later when London clarified that Eritrea was under British military administration, not Ethiopian crown rule, and the emperor had no claim to the territory at that time. Corn:...right. Corn: Here's what I'd leave listeners with. If you care about this — if you want the ability to operate under a legally recognized second name for privacy — the window to shape how this works is open right now. The digital identity infrastructure is being built. The eIDAS wallet is rolling out. The attestation framework is live. Whether it becomes a privacy tool or a surveillance tool depends on whether anyone demands the privacy version. Thanks to our producer Hilbert Flumingtop. This has been My Weird Prompts. Find us at my weird prompts dot com. Herman: Or email the show at show at my weird prompts dot com. Until next time.