National Internet ID

SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
<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>
«13

Comments

  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members
    <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1rlThKe1qo"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1rlThKe1qo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    Generally when posting a discussion it helps to put forward something to elicit discussion.

    Rather than simply functioning as a news aggregator.
  • juicejuice Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12886Members, Constellation
    Ah, clearly Chris0132 objects to any questioning of the Galactic Empire and its holy actions, before any discussion even begins!

    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...
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    Actually it was more that I don't really know what to say. Obama apparently wants people to be identified on the internet.

    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.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    I did not realize that I needed to explicitly state my position for you to form an opinion of your own and I thought that most would guess from the thread title that I generally do not agree with the notion of the government creating a national internet ID.
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    it'd probably help track people who give stuff to wikileaks or something?

    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.
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    Scarcity of information makes it pretty difficulty to figure out what this is supposed to be, but it seems like it's intended more as a way for you to prove your identity, not as a way of forcing you to disclose it. Like a passport, only for the internet? These are the paragraphs that point to it:

    <!--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-->
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    I don't see the benefit in that, though. You can already "prove" your identity online by email, or username, and so on. You can't directly link those profiles and names with your *real* name very easily, but I don't see how you *could*. Anything that requires a login can be hacked, cracked, stolen or guessed or whatever. You could have a real world thing that requires a keycard or thumbprint or something like that, but they're not exactly foolproof and can be spoofed and stolen and hacked and cracked and blah blah blah.


    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.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    edited January 2011
    It seems like it would start as some kind of verification for online commerce, I am sure the IRS is interested in tracking a lot of unreported income. Once a system is in place and more or less accepted it could be expanded to cover just about anything.

    <!--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.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
    edited January 2011
    Sounds like <a href="http://www.digid.nl/english/" target="_blank">DigID</a>, which works pretty well. You Yanks are soo paranoid :P
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1823264:date=Jan 11 2011, 05:27 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Jan 11 2011, 05:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823264"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
  • MOOtantMOOtant Join Date: 2010-06-25 Member: 72158Members
    OpenID is already out there.

    Anyway Hitler said that marking Jews with star of David was for their own good. He must had been right.
  • juicejuice Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12886Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1823270:date=Jan 11 2011, 01:09 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Jan 11 2011, 01:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823270"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OpenID is already out there.

    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.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1823268:date=Jan 10 2011, 11:40 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jan 10 2011, 11:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823268"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it's optional. Or at least, that's what he's saying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    "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.
  • MOOtantMOOtant Join Date: 2010-06-25 Member: 72158Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1823271:date=Jan 11 2011, 06:41 AM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Jan 11 2011, 06:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823271"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with that is you can just take off your star. You need to have documentation and identification to prove you're innocent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Not really. Jews taking it off were penalized (I mean in the early days).
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    edited January 2011
    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:

    <!--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.
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    edited January 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1823270:date=Jan 11 2011, 05:09 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Jan 11 2011, 05:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823270"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OpenID is already out there.

    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.
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1823329:date=Jan 11 2011, 02:09 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 11 2011, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Corporations cannot imprison you against your will for refusal to participate in their grand plans.
  • RobRob Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
    Our American love for corporations over government has less to do with a belief that corporations are less abusive, and more to do with the concession that abuse is inevitable and that at least corporations abuse us efficiently.
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1823340:date=Jan 11 2011, 09:16 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Jan 11 2011, 09:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823340"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Corporations cannot imprison you against your will for refusal to participate in their grand plans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    And why not? Who's going to stop them? Think about that one for a moment, the answer may surprise you.
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members
    Not "who", "what" is going to stop them.

    Answer: The Law.

    What lone entity can and will operate without consequence of The Law?
    Governments.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    Many Australian prisons are run by private companies as is Canadian Air Traffic Control, many countries are turning to privatization it is by no means an American phenomenon.
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    edited January 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1823340:date=Jan 11 2011, 07:16 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Jan 11 2011, 07:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823340"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Corporations cannot imprison you against your will for refusal to participate in their grand plans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    edited January 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1823356:date=Jan 11 2011, 10:46 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Jan 11 2011, 10:46 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-->
    Okay. Now, who enforces the law?

    Edit: Chris got it first.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1823403:date=Jan 11 2011, 06:47 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 11 2011, 06:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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.
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1823308:date=Jan 11 2011, 11:01 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 11 2011, 11:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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-->
    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.
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    edited January 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1823419:date=Jan 12 2011, 03:18 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Jan 12 2011, 03:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823419"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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.
  • juicejuice Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12886Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1823403:date=Jan 11 2011, 07:47 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 11 2011, 07:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1823403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(Corporations) can cut off any service you rely on them for without any justification, mode of appeal, or public scrutiny.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
  • That_Annoying_KidThat_Annoying_Kid Sire of Titles Join Date: 2003-03-01 Member: 14175Members, Constellation
    Juice: It will be interesting to see how you fair with the coming net neutrality attacks, I know ATT debuted tiered service in the east coast.
  • juicejuice Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12886Members, Constellation
    Tiered service?! You mean I would have to actually pay for my extreme bandwidth usage? How unfair! Old people who only check Yahoo and use 5MB/day should be paying for my service. GMan! Force gramps to pay up, yo!
Sign In or Register to comment.