@feetwet It is surprising how many contradictory answers to a seemingly simple and real world question there are.

@privateuser The owner of the existing private road may not be a resident on the existing private road.

I think this question could be improved by distinguishing between "make getting paid for work" [already performed] and granting employment/entering employment contract/requiring fulfilment of documentary requirements of a contract which is the question you are answering and I am sure the real world useful answer.

In the linked case the code in question in open source, eg. GPL'ed. I do not think this licence restricts the use of the code for training an AI at all.

It is not completely clear to me what you have and what the individual is refusing to provide. What is "personal ID number"? Is this something you generate, and the individual may have lost? Is this a state issued ID number? Why is the individual refusing, and are there other reasonable methods of identification? I am pretty sure the answer does not depend on the actual uniqueness of the name.

@NateEldredge If the code was say GPL'ed just about anything but distributing derivative works is allowed without restrictions. The linked article is all about charges that were thrown out prior to trial. I think this was trained on GitHub code which was freely uploaded by the rights holders.

@Barmar Here is an example where the information is required. I asked about this here and the only answer thought it justifiable. I think it should not be, but that does not make it so.

"authenticating with you should not expose more private information, than you had before" Is this based on anything? I had assumed that this would be the case, but cannot find anything official saying so.

It is relevant if the body is still in the house or not.

@Jen I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the fact that the request is included in the relatively famous "nightmare letter" gives a certain amount of authority to the information being requested is required by the GDPR.

@Trish Indeed, but that is a different question.

@quarague As I say in the question that woudl probably be the best I could hope for, but in the absence of that some authoritative writing I guess. Ot seems liek the sort of thing that comes up.