the more information you have about citizens, the more you can control what they see, hear, think and ultimately do. What's essential, somehow, is to get across the idea that you are entitled to be anonymous in going about your lawful business. I think that this is close to being a fundamental principle of a free society under the rule of law: because we ought to be treated equally in equal circumstances, an enquiry into who you are ought to be considered unacepptable in any casual transaction because it ought to be irrelevant. Compare those rules in effect forbidding employers from asking female candidates at interview about their plans for children. Because the inquiry implies a discrimination on grounds of personal characteristics that it is thought ought to be irrelevant, it is barred. The very fact of formal inquiry as to your identity - rather than the relevant characteristic - implies that we are not equal before the law and places you in the position of a personal supplicant, not a customer or equal citizen. Beyond the reasons already articulated, one can easily think of persons who do have aspects about themsleves that they would arguble have completely legitimate reasons for wanting to keep secret. To give but a few examples: 1) People with "socially unnacceptable" illnesses who would not want that information shared outside professional medical contacts. "Then you won't mind me comming round to to your house to search through your bedroom draws after which I'll then install