The world is awash in inauthenticity.

Nowhere is the problem worse than online. The Internet is drowning in fraud, predation, trespass and theft.

Of all the approaches to a solution to the problem, the only one with legs consists of pervasive signing of everything by credentials that were created through reliable enrollment procedures.

The detailed case for that statement can be found elsewhere, as can the case that a universal identity credential, done right, reinforces personal privacy rather than eroding it. But for our purposes here, the term "reliable enrollment procedures" has a surprisingly theological component.

The enrollment procedures that create the most reliable identity credential are of course face-to-face processes. Before creating a key pair the enrollee must place himself or herself under penalty of perjury, the process being captured on a video file that is digitally signed by the enrollment officer.

Placing oneself under penalty of perjury involves the wonderfully internationally recognized thing called an oath, administered by a public official, typically a notary. However in some "enlightened" jurisdictions an "acknowledgement" may be substituted for the oath, the difference being that in an oath a deity is invoked; in an acknowledgement, well, we don't need to involve the Creator in this as we're good enough folks on our own to attest to the veracity of our own assertions.

Except...

Is an identity that is established by acknowledgement recognized in jurisdictions that only allow oaths?

The short answer is: no. Actually it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and more importantly from court to court and from case to case. Most problematically, the acknowledgement simply blows away the amazing universality of notarial authority. While a document that is authenticated in Louisiana will be honored in Havana, Tehran and North Korea, an oathless acknowledgement that does not involve Allah will carry no weight not just in the Muslim world but large numbers of non-Muslim jurisdictions as well. The validity of the resulting identity credential not only may be legally challenged at some point but in fact that challenge may be encouraged and supported by governments and mullahs and fatwahs and bishops and on and on. The presence of an "atheistic" identity credential on their turf will likely provide a rare opportunity for some ayatollah to assert Muslim law over the actions of some infidel official in a foreign jurisdiction.

So, Enlightened, may we offer a new name for God?

TWCYM stands for That Which Created You and Me. Note that it is not only gender neutral, its neutrality extends to the image thing as well. There's no presumption of - or, importantly, denial of - human attributes in our Creator.

Can you swear an oath to TWCYM?

Think about it. It'll mean we can get about the business of building authenticity on the Web.

I thought so.