Legitimation vs identifikation

Det meste af denne blog er på engelsk. Jeg arbejder i et internationalt felt. Men her kommer mit engelske lidt til kort – i hvert fald på skrift.

Vi har et problem med CPR-numre. Og det skyldes en grundlæggende misforståelse.

CPR-nummeret er den unikke identifikation af en person i Danmark. De ti cifre der er knyttet til mig, identificerer mig. Når vi taler om en person med CPR-nummeret 123456-7890, er der en og kun en person der kan være tale om.

Vi ved også at det er en person født i den ukendte måned 34 og at vedkommende er født med en biologi der gør vedkommende til en “han”.

Så når jeg går ind i en forretning, og indgår en låneaftale, hvoraf det fremgår at CPR-nummeret på låntager er 123456-7890 – så er det entydigt identificeret, at det er denne meget fiktive person der hæfter for pengene.

Betyder det så at jeg, den person der stod i forretningen, var denne person?

Nej. Jeg kan have stjålet et sygesikringsbevis. Jeg kan for så vidt have produceret det selv. Det er ikke så svært. I de mest grelle eksempler, har låntager slet ikke fremvist noget som helst, men bare sagt CPR-nummeret. Hvis jeg ikke har fremvist legitimation på at jeg er den person der er identificeret med det CPR-nummer – så er der ingen garanti for at jeg faktisk er den person.

Problemet opstår fordi folk ikke kan finde ud af at skelne mellem netop identifikation og legitimation. CPR-nummeret bliver betragtet som en hemmelig kode. Hvis man kan oplyse det, så må man være den person. Men det er ikke spor hemmeligt. Det står på dit sygesikringsbevis. Det gemmer sig i stregkoden. De første seks cifre oplyser du gladeligt til hvem som helst. Det sidste ciffer kan, for 99,4% af befolkningen, begrænses til at være et af fem.

Du tror det er hemmeligt, og at hvis du kan oplyse det, så kan der ikke være tvivl om at det faktisk er dig. Udbydere af kviklån lader som om det er hemmeligt, og at de har fat i den rigtige person hvis de får det oplyst. Jeg er helt sikker på at de godt er klar over problemstillingen, men bare er ligeglade. Alle lader som om at man kan bruge CPR-nummeret til at legitimere sig. Og fordi vi lader som om man kan det, får man problemer med identitetstyveri når folk kan optage forbrugslån ved blot at oplyse et CPR-nummer. Og folk går i panik over at deres CPR-nummer offentliggøres.

Vi burde offentliggøre alle CPR-numre. Så ville det forhåbentlig stå klart for alle at CPR-nummeret ikke legitimerer noget som helst.

Working from home – it’s not all bad

As a follow up to the previous post.

Yes, a sub-optimal meeting culture does not automatically become optimal because it goes online.

But! This corona/covid-19/chinese flu crisis amplifies stuff. The racial problems in the US becomes more pronounced. The problems with the british class system are suddenly visible even from across the north sea. The challenges workers in precarious posions in a global economy faces are enlarged.

And the problematic elements in a meeting culture becomes large enough, that something might actually be done about them!

Working from home

Denmark has been in lockdown – or something like it – for close to two months now. March 11th our prime minister announced that all public employees where to be sent home as soon as possible. A lot of other institutions, companies and functions were similarly closed down. Further restrictions were introduced in the following weeks.

My husband was also told to work from home. He had his first full day at home on the 12th. I had to show up at work on the 12th, and was sent home early because I had an online meeting in the afternoon.

How is this working? The first 1½ week it was great! Finally I had the time to get on top of things, uninterrupted by meetings, colleagues asking if I wanted to drink coffee, or if I could help change the toner in the printer.

The next two weeks – (timeline excluding the 1½ week I was on mandatory vacation at home in connection with easter) – where not that productive. The stuff that could be done without talking with colleagues was running out.

And after that – now we have found the way. Online meetings are working, debating the way we should design a general, introductory workshop on visualization of data is as frustrating as it would have been otherwise. And the amount of irrelevant meetings is back to normal. Do not misunderstand me – meeting with colleagues without having an agenda is nice. And necessary, especially since we are in almost complete isolation at home. On the other hand. Not every meeting is actually necessary. I started the lockdown joking that we would now discover which meetings could have been emails. Now, I think that we are beginning to discover which emails could have been meetings. If we cant meet, at least we can have a meeting.

In other words – the bad habits of the physical office is entering the online office.

Managers and colleagues have no problem booking online meetings at the same time as you are in another meeting. With little to no understanding that you are actually in another meeting. As I wrote my boss: I can’t wait for us to get physically back to the library, so I can tell you that I cannot attend that meeting, since I am out of town at another meeting.

Usually it is possible to get people to understand, that if your meeting at location A ends at 12.00 you are not able to attend another meeting at location B. Or, they can understand if if there is 30 minutes of transportation between the two locations. Not so in the virtual world. Leading to a day (two weeks ago as of this writing), with the first meeting beginning at 9 and ending at 9.30. The next meeting from 9.30 to 11.00. The next again from 11.00 to 12.00. And the next from 12.00 to 13.00. The fifth meeting started 13.00 and was finished 14.00 Not that we were actually finished, but the sixth meeting was at 14.00. Happily it was a short one, only lasting 15 minutes. So I had 45 minutes for a biobreak, before the final meeting started at 15.00.