According to Hansen & Meissner, what are the three grounds on which a participant's identity can be "not determinable" in an anonymous process?
An identity is not determinable when the participant is unknown (Nichtbekanntsein), not named (Nichtgenanntsein), or nameless within the process (Namenlosigkeit) — three distinct ways anonymity can arise.
This definition (Hansen & Meissner, Verkettung digitaler Identitäten, 2007) lists three reasons the identity of one or more participants in an anonymous operation cannot be established:
| German term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Nichtbekanntsein ("not-being-known") | The participant is simply not known to the other participants |
| Nichtgenanntsein ("not-being-named") | The participant does not appear/come forward toward the others |
| Namenlosigkeit ("namelessness") | The participant acts within the process with no recognizable name at all |
Why distinguish them: these are different failure modes of identification, not synonyms. You can be known to exist yet act namelessly (Namenlosigkeit), or be entirely unknown (Nichtbekanntsein). Each calls for different protective measures.
Tie-back to the formal definition: all three serve the same goal — keeping you inside the anonymity set so an attacker cannot single you out. They are the practical routes to the abstract "cannot sufficiently identify" condition.