I see, but identity is a mental construct that refers to real entities (although this is already subjective). A digital identity is the digital artifact of such a construct. A bureaucratic identity is, analogously, the administrative artifact. My neighbor's face is not part of the identity. It is part of the reality to which an identity refers. Incidentally, the identity that I assign to him based on my perception does not require a general discussion, as it is not a general phenomenon. In my view, there is no such thing as a human identity, at least not in a way that is meaningfully comparable to a digital or bureaucratic identity. The conceptual crux of identity is how it can be firmly and verifiably linked to real events as a mental construct, despite the definitional vagueness, the change of things over time, the susceptibility to errors of real implementation of corresponding systems, etc.