National Internet ID
Sops
Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Its for your benefit, really</div><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b>
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->January 7, 2011 4:31 PM
Posted by Declan McCullagh<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
STANFORD, Calif. - President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.
...
"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html</a>
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->January 7, 2011 4:31 PM
Posted by Declan McCullagh<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
STANFORD, Calif. - President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.
...
"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html</a>
Comments
Rather than simply functioning as a news aggregator.
Let's begin then.
I love the wording: "President Obama is planning to <b>hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority</b> over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort" as if the president has this authority in the first place.
It's not like <b>he</b> invented the internet, like the 4th amendment doesn't apply online if he says so.
That was Al Gore. Now if <b>he</b> wanted to give the executive branch authority over internet privacy, that would be ok by me...
Good to know? Generally when you want to start a discussion you provide an opinion and stuff.
It's not really a discussion if you just post a news article.
Not living in America I don't really have an opinion on it, although I can agree or disagree with logic.
I'm not sure how it'd work, unless they actively forced everyone to use it. And even then, their jurisdiction ends in america so it'd still be dumb.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, I guess, sites would have to incorporate this new ID thing or something? Which just leaves a market open for sites that cater to people who don't want to use the ID. And if everyone's forced to use the ID system or whatever, then people from outside the US either have to be blocked from accessing the sites (unlikely), have to sign up for their own ID (wouldn't have... much support) or continue to use whatever system they're currently using, which renders the entire exercise pointless.
Plus it sounds like what they're trying to do has already been done by Facebook and other social networking sites that let you login/manage all kinds of stuff from one page. Are they gonna buy Facebook? That would be hilarious.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.
Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who spoke later at the event, said any Internet ID must be created by the private sector--and also voluntary and competitive.
"The government cannot create that identity infrastructure," Dempsey said. "If it tried to, it wouldn't be trusted."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I can think of is some kind of portal that you log in to (somehow) and then access other sites through that. But those kinds of things are already coming about anyway.
I just feel like I'm missing something obvious here. I keep coming back to the idea that *any* system they can possibly implement has to have you inputting *some* kind of information to prove that you're you, and then sending that to somewhere else to verify it. And that information can be stolen or duplicated in some way.
Not to mention the fact that most identity thefts (of various forms, from full on ID theft to losing an email/account on some site somewhere) come from database thefts or people being dumb and giving out their passwords/downloading something stupid.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just feel like I'm missing something obvious here. I keep coming back to the idea that *any* system they can possibly implement has to have you inputting *some* kind of information to prove that you're you, and then sending that to somewhere else to verify it. And that information can be stolen or duplicated in some way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this has a lot less to do with preventing identity theft and a lot more to do with the government trying to figure out what you are doing online.
But it's optional. Or at least, that's what he's saying.
From the information I have at hand about it, I'm not even opposed to the idea at all. I just think it's kinda pointless.
Anyway Hitler said that marking Jews with star of David was for their own good. He must had been right.
Anyway Hitler said that marking Jews with star of David was for their own good. He must had been right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with that is you can just take off your star. You need to have documentation and identification to prove you're innocent.
"Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said"
I do not need to get a driver's license or go through a TSA screening, I am just denied those modes of transport with out them.
Not really. Jews taking it off were penalized (I mean in the early days).
It's very quaint that you're all spinning your little conspiracy theories. Charming, in a way. But try to go with what the article actually says (which is not much). Here, I'll quote it again. I'll even bold and colour the most relevant bits:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Schmidt <b><!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->stressed<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> today that <b><!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to,"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.
Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who spoke later at the event, said any Internet ID must be created by the private sector--and also <b><!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->voluntary and competitive.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're jumping at shadows on the cave wall. You're freaking out over something we know very little about. If you want to freak out over something, freak out over <b>that.</b> Write to your congressman or whatever it is you do and demand more information on this. But don't freak out over what you think this is when what little we know indicates anything but that.
Anyway Hitler said that marking Jews with star of David was for their own good. He must had been right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler ate sugar.
<!--quoteo(post=1823308:date=Jan 11 2011, 04:01 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 11 2011, 04:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And Godwin's law proves itself once again. You know, some day we're going to have some 5-year old kid refusing to eat his broccoli under the pretense that Hitler said that broccoli was the one true aryan food.
It's very quaint that you're all spinning your little conspiracy theories. Charming, in a way. But try to go with what the article actually says (which is not much). Here, I'll quote it again. I'll even bold and colour the most relevant bits:
You're jumping at shadows on the cave wall. You're freaking out over something we know very little about. If you want to freak out over something, freak out over <b>that.</b> Write to your congressman or whatever it is you do and demand more information on this. But don't freak out over what you think this is when what little we know indicates anything but that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't get the american terror over government, or rather I don't get why americans are terrified of government but <i>love</i> corporations.
I don't see why putting private companies in charge of stuff makes it less likely to be abused.
The point of governemnt is that it's open to public review, you ostensibly have the right to see how your government works, so as to prevent them doing anything fishy. Private operations have no such obligation. American government is far more open to public scrutiny than american business, if you want to put something in responsible hands, put it in the hands of the people who you can spend all day every day watching them do their jobs on TV.
Corporations cannot imprison you against your will for refusal to participate in their grand plans.
And why not? Who's going to stop them? Think about that one for a moment, the answer may surprise you.
Answer: The Law.
What lone entity can and will operate without consequence of The Law?
Governments.
No but they can cut off any service you rely on them for without any justification, mode of appeal, or public scrutiny.
So I wouldn't, as an example, rely on them to ensure I don't die of some sort of health problem. Or put them in charge of my main mode of communication.
<!--quoteo(post=1823356:date=Jan 11 2011, 08:46 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Jan 11 2011, 08:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823356"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not "who", "what" is going to stop them.
Answer: The Law.
What lone entity can and will operate without consequence of The Law?
Governments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because the government makes the law. It's kind of hard to have a law without having someone be above it. Law is by nature hierarchical, it's 'don't do this because I will hit you with this stick'. Which means someone has to be holding the stick, and that someone is therefore entirely free to not hit themselves with it. When it comes to the people who make the laws you really only have the kindness of their hearts to rely on.
By and large however, it is the law and subsequently the government which stops the country being run by corporate city-states with their own private armies.
Answer: The Law.
What lone entity can and will operate without consequence of The Law?
Governments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay. Now, who enforces the law?
Edit: Chris got it first.
That is the reason government should not provide services more then is necessary. There is no one to hold them accountable, short of huge public uproar, but things should not have to reach that point before something is fixed. I would rather see a government with a smaller financial stake overseeing an industry rather then running it.
The potential advantages of the proposed system are virtually nonexistent while the potential for abuse is considerable. At <i>best</i> this is government waste, so yes, there is plenty of reason to oppose this.
This seems to be exactly what they're proposing though. Free market competition with government oversight. Congratulations, you got it the way you wanted it!
<!--quoteo(post=1823423:date=Jan 12 2011, 03:58 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Jan 12 2011, 03:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823423"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The potential advantages of the proposed system are virtually nonexistent while the potential for abuse is considerable. At <i>best</i> this is government waste, so yes, there is plenty of reason to oppose this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Potential for abuse? Interesting. This doesn't follow from the article you linked (since all that article talks about is a voluntary system that allows people to retain pseudonymity and anonymity), so I assume you have some secret source of information beyond what you linked initially, full of troubling facts that are not known to the rest of us. Please share this secret source with us, so that we can properly discuss it.
No, you enter into a contract with a business for a service.
I will choose the company whose contract prohibits them from cutting off my service without justification. And the company who only offers service which they can turn off at any time will get no business. Neither will companies who break their contracts.
It is government who can do what they wish, and I am personally powerless to prevent it.