The common naming triple of First Middle Last may result in more uniqueness than desired... a life sentence imposed upon you by parents unaware of privacy, databasing, freedom to reassociate, and related issues. What of defense of naming with the minimum number of bits required, in the minimum number of fields required? For example, on that root of all human databases, the typical birth certificate. You could be "a j smith" or "t jones", perhaps even "no name", "a b", or simply "a". Perhaps even numbers or any UTF-8 chars. You could expand, change and interpret them in future daily context as desired or useful, such as "t" to "tom", "tony", "terry". There are metrics to be applied such as "a" being the first in sort order, and "t" being the last character with any common frequency. And flexible phonetics that sound like names such as "d" for "dee", "j" for "jay", "l" for "elle". And where your minimum is less than some state or clerk idea of minimum, useful ambiguity can still be injected with things like gender "pat", "morgan", and shorthand "ed (eddie, edward...)", "jane (janel, janelle, janet...)".