What's In A Name?
The Supreme Court decision in the Hiibel case can be found here. The question rasied was as follows: is a person who has been stopped by a police officer compelled to give his or her name to the officer? Hiibel argued that compelling him to provide his name violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In split decisions, the Nevada Supreme Court (4-3) and the U.S. Supreme Court (5-4) rejected Hiibel's argument.

In the majority and minority opinions, it was noted that disclosure of a name may serve to incriminate someone. Justice Breyer cited the examples of "Killer Bill" and "Rough 'em up Harry" (while also noting that such a name is not required to link a person to a chain of evidence).

Despite this, I maintain (and will continue to maintain throughout the World Wide Forest) that human nature and organizational nature effectively prevent creation of a Big Brother all-encompassing network of sensitive information. State A has no interest in helping State B solve crimes. I have previously stated my thoughts on this matter:

There is a common misconception that if the FBI has some information, and the CIA has some information, and the NSA has some information, they can easily put all of this information together and construct a "Big Brother" tracking mechanism. Unfortunately, the FBI and CIA have no interest in working together. I've personally witnessed situations where two different employees of the FBI were working at cross purposes. Reorganization won't help - even if the FBI, CIA, and everyone else were all managed by a single Grand Wazoo, there would still be a Deputy Wazoo for domestic affairs and another Deputy Wazoo for foreign affairs, and THEY'D protect THEIR turf and go at each other's throats.