US Government Begins Rollout Of Its 'Driver's License For The Internet'
from the seizing-the-(wrong)-moment dept
An idea the government has been kicking around since 2011 is finally making its debut. Calling this move ill-timed would be the most gracious way of putting it.
A few years back, the White House had a brilliant idea: Why not create a single, secure online ID that Americans could use to verify their identity across multiple websites, starting with local government services. The New York Times described it at the time as a "driver's license for the internet."The NSTIC program has been in (slow) motion for nearly three years, but now, at a time when the public's trust in government is at an all time low, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST -- itself still reeling a bit from NSA-related blowback) is testing the program in Michigan and Pennsylvania. The first tests appear to be exclusively aimed at accessing public programs, like government assistance. The government believes this ID system will help reduce fraud and overhead, by eliminating duplicated ID efforts across multiple agencies.
Sound convenient? It is. Sound scary? It is.
Next month, a pilot program of the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" will begin in government agencies in two US states, to test out whether the pros of a federally verified cyber ID outweigh the cons.
But the program isn't strictly limited to government use. The ultimate goal is a replacement of many logins and passwords people maintain to access content and participate in comment threads and forums. This "solution," while somewhat practical, also raises considerable privacy concerns.
[T]he Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately pointed out the red flags, arguing that the right to anonymous speech in the digital realm is protected under the First Amendment. It called the program "radical," "concerning," and pointed out that the plan "makes scant mention of the unprecedented threat such a scheme would pose to privacy and free speech online."Beyond the privacy issues (and the hints of government being unduly interested in your online activities), there are the security issues. This collected information would be housed centrally, possibly by corporate third parties. When hackers can find a wealth of information at one location, it presents a very enticing target. The government's track record on protecting confidential information is hardly encouraging.
And the keepers of the identity credentials wouldn't be the government itself, but a third party organization. When the program was introduced in 2011, banks, technology companies or cellphone service providers were suggested for the role, so theoretically Google or Verizon could have access to a comprehensive profile of who you are that's shared with every site you visit, as mandated by the government.
The problem is, ultimately, that this is the government rolling this out. Unlike corporations, citizens won't be allowed the luxury of opting out. This "internet driver's license" may be the only option the public has to do things like renew actual driver's licenses or file taxes or complete paperwork that keeps them on the right side of federal law. Whether or not you believe the government's assurances that it will keep your data safe from hackers, keep it out of the hands of law enforcement (without a warrant), or simply not look at it just because it's there, matters very little. If the government decides the positives outweigh the negatives, you'll have no choice but to participate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: driver's license, identification, nstic, trusted identity
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A very concerning point
So all that juicy data would be housed by third parties, and therefor, by the government's arguments and actions, completely negating any expectations of privacy, meaning any agency could browse around to their heart's content, without once involving a judge.
Oh yes, brilliant timing there. I'm sure that will go over great, and never be abused... /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A very concerning point
No thank you.
This is why there are many working on the "alter" net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A very concerning point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the positives and negatives in this case...
For the government the positives is all that delicious data in one spot and the negatives are privacy and anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the positives and negatives in this case...
"For the government and identity thieves the positives is all that delicious data in one spot and the negatives are privacy and anonymity."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh!
~Obama courtesy of the NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh!
I'm sure you have your share of stupid people, in whatever country you're from. Anyway, a lot of people that fail to see what is happening, are far from being stupid, In fact many have a higher than average IQ, and education. Instead of stupid, they are highly deceived. Many of the lesser intelligent and the under-educated people see what is happening, because they have common sense.
If you are unaware of what common sense is, it's that (let's say) instinctual thing, that allows you to know things such as, ie: just because some, of a group of people are one way, doesn't make all of them like that.
As a result of having common sense they don't go around throwing insults like you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can't do the same for road access. If I drive without government authorization I could have my property(motor conveyance) seized and my life possibly thrown into traction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But no ISP is required to give you such access. Therefore it's a privilege, not a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a right to eat? Do you see that delineated anywhere in the constitution? Is the ISP a government entity?
What argument are you making here? Is the government regulating my access to the internet like they are the roads?
Just because there is a business or even government regulated business surrounding it does not mean its considered a privilege. What may be more at stake here is that you seem to be of the mind that unless its in the constitution that is not a right. That line of thinking is what is destroying this nation.
Anything that the government has not written law against and does not offend the Constitution and basic common sense is a right. Anything the government has written laws to control is a privilege. Government writing laws to regulate should not be construed to imply privilege or control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my view, whether or not the government is involved has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something is a right or not. Obviously, internet access is not a right because it can legally be denied to anyone at any time for any reason. Whether or not the government is the one doing the denying is irrelevant.
"Just because there is a business or even government regulated business surrounding it does not mean its considered a privilege."
I never asserted otherwise. However, if your ability to do something can be legally prevented by a business or government, then it clearly is not something that is legally considered to be a right at all.
I do not believe that our rights are delineated by the Constitution, because generally speaking, the Constitution doesn't do that. It limits government, not grants rights. I'm not sure why you bring this up since I didn't mention the Constitution at all.
"Anything that the government has not written law against and does not offend the Constitution and basic common sense is a right."
I think this definition is extremely flawed. What is "basic common sense?" A whole lot of infringement on people's rights takes place under the rubric of "basic common sense".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because at the end of the day, anything can be taken from anyone under the color of authority because that's just how things go. Please tell me in your words... whom, what, or how do you derive what you consider to be rights?
Name a single thing government(s) has not laid claim to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, to shortcut a discussion that's impossible to cover adequately in a comment section, let me just say -- there are no absolute rights, but there are rights. Absolute rights are logically impossible because it's always possible to exercise your rights in a way that infringes on someone else's, and when rights conflict with each other, compromises must be made.
Your example of it being possible to legally deprive someone of their right to life is a great example of this. What you say is true, but it's also true that you have a right to exist. This is expressed by the fact that your right can only be legally ignored under certain very specific circumstances.
When I talk about ISPs being able to deny you access, this is an indication that the access is not a right because the ISP does not have to justify denying you access in any way. You don't have a right to it, so they can just tell you to fuck off because they feel like it. If it were a right, they'd have to justify their decision in some way.
You keep bringing the government back into this discussion, but I don't think it really belongs here at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You posited that because it is possible for someone to be denied something makes it privilege. Yet you claim that existence is a right.
You cannot hold that right to exist is true even when it may be removed, while denying the Internet is a right even when it may be removed.
Sure a business can tell me that I cannot use their network to access the Internet, but they cannot take my access to the internet itself away because I can achieve it through other means. Are you getting it yet? Just as it is a right to shop at various stores (whether I take a road or sidewalk), I have a right to the internet (whether I use an ISP or make one myself)! Are you getting it yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. That you think I contradicted myself just speaks to how bad I am at communicating my points with you.
"Are you getting it yet?"
I believe that I do understand what you're saying. You're just not understanding what I'm saying. Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you are mistaken to believe that the Constitution Limits government. To get more technical.
There is only 1 way to view it properly... The Constitution is a document that Grants Government Power... The Bill of Rights is the limiter. The word Constitution is used generally, but usually not to negative detriment.
The Citizens are responsible for Limiting Government. No Document, no Words, and no Spirit of intent shall be able to accommodate this never ending task sufficiently. Only the threat of a Patriot will keep a government in check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you mean that it is not successful at limiting government, I agree with you. If you mean that limiting government is not it's purpose, then you are incorrect. That is expressly it's purpose.
Not just the Bill of Rights, the whole thing. The main body of the Constitution is limiting in nature. It says "these are the things that the government may do, and the government may not do anything else."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Federalist 44, Publius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Constitution grants Powers to Government. This is correct Syntax.
"Limiting in nature" is a euphemistic equivalent, but should not be considered correct, no matter how close to the facts it gets.
Yes I am splitting hairs but in this case it is important. If I say you may enter my house, what permissions are given? Only entry to the house.
If I say you man not use the hallway, you still have not been limited from breaking my windows.
It is the mind set we approach a situation with that defines how we will deal with people attempting to take more than they deserved or have a right to. If you approach every situation with Government as a Euphemism then you will lose continually, allow me to indicate human history as that very proof!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With blacklisting, the initial assumption is the target have every rights possible. Controls are implemented by having a list which lists the exceptions. If something is not listed on that list, then by default it is assumed the target have that right.
In whitelisting, the initial assumption is that the target doesn't have any right whatsoever. The list then contains the exception to that rule, that is the rights the target have. If something is not listed, then by default it is assumed the target doesn't have that right.
The Constitution then can be seen as a whitelist, in which it grants only those rights/powers to the government, which assumed to be inherently powerless/without rights. So it can be said that Constitution grants Powers to Government.
So how is it not limiting the goverment? In a sense it is, but the term limiting conjures the image that the government can do everything under the sun except those which are listed/regulated in the Constitution. This is a dangerous idea which can drive people complacent/apathy if the government do something outside it's mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the government's ability to punitively remove access for behavior that is partially or completely unrelated.
So, all we need is some overeager "think of the children" legislator getting conditions where your "internet drivers license" is revoked for certain actions. Like say, falling behind on child support payments, because as we all know, someone who's unemployed has no use for the internet. Being an ex-felon who's served their time, in the fear that they may do "internet terrorism" things, and of course, speaking out against any agency that has influence over revocation, because, as the TSA has repeatedly proven, we can trust our government agencies to act responsibly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAC or bust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PAC or bust
Justice is only for those willing to pay for it. But when it gets too expensive, it soon drops to the price of lead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make Congress live with this first.
Stop testing it or inflicting it on the people until you've had to walk that mile in our shoes.
This is a stupid idea.
I can see a secure ID program for using Gov programs, trying to stop waste, duplicating costs, cutting down on fraud... but rolling this out widely flys in the face of the 'freedoms' we allegedly still have. People have a right to speak out without having to worry that it is part of a dossier available to people who can hack, run the program, of the government who might like to know exactly who insulted a congressman who wants to teach that guy a lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
enough to wake them to the potential for abuse.
Imagine what the reaction would be to learing that YOUR senile old man uses the Internet for almost
one hour per month, has no personal email account, and travels mostly in the private jets of "friends".
I wonder what the reelection rate would be for that two years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would this be different than today, apart from the "centrally"? Third parties already have our "internet ID".
When hackers can find a wealth of information at one location, it presents a very enticing target.
Was "enticing target" a pun? Because I laughed.
Moochers wouldn't need to attack the central system. They can easily grab the information from sites which still haven't encrypted their data, and there are plenty out there ripe for the taking.
But there is one silver lining to this plan: the NSA would no longer need to intercept data. I'm fairly confident where this "centrally" located area is, or will be, once they fix their water issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hackers would target this central system because, again, they will have more information than just any old site AND they will have pretty much all the information on EVERYONE in the U.S., not just whoever uses the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just heard hundreds of modems squeal with delight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just heard hundreds of modems squeal with delight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What could POSSIBLY go wrong...
Seriously, who in their right mind would want to use a GOVERNMENT ID to surf the web. You know everything you do would be tracked.
If that happens, I go DarkNet all the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh.
It's hard to see how they could require this ID to be used anywhere else, however. That would be the thing I'd get all up in arms about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two words: 'Internet filters'
Once the system is in place, then it's only a matter of time until it's expanded, and at that point it's generally too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
Private sites will then see that the ID can cut the cost of maintaining their own database, and allocate those resources to other things. Before long, the ID became standard.
Yes, it is not certain that it'll roll out that way, but will you leave things like privacy and security to chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meh.
Even with express regulation, there's no safeguard. When SSNs were first introduced, there was express regulation that the SSN was *not* to be used as a general identifier for people by other government agencies or private entities. Fast forward 40 years and the SSN has become your catchall identifier for everything from your cable account to your tax returns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meh.
Since the Bible has already been brought up, those supposed believers, that also believe in this government, should look to the part where Satan led Christ up on the pinnacle, (the high place) and pointed out all of those principalities, and municipalities, (that;s kingdoms, big and small) and said, all of these I give you if you worship me. Now Christ didn't say you can't give them away, because they belong to my father, so they are already my birthright. No, he said he would only worship the father, and he let Satan keep his governments. That aught to show folk why things are so messed up. Because to be a leader, you have to worship Satan. that doesn't mean you have to literally bow down, but you have to be a not very good person, following in Satan's footsteps, with deception, and all kinds of other negative traits, but will have good charisma, being a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
Sprinkle in some rootkits/monitoring software (secretly at first) whenever you log-in to the government portal...followed by logging in to the portal before your ISP lets you out of the 'walled garden'..hey presto! totalitarianism in a way that would make chairman mao spooge his pants with envy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would EASILY paint them as the bad guys and no one likes being tracked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Mayor of New York decided all 'the blacks' were criminals and started having them stopped/searched based purely on skin color..Obama said nothing.
The NSA/CIA authorized assassinations of US citizens inside AND outside the mainland USA and obama.......did nothing.
At this point, either Obama is the most ineffective guy ever to sit in the Oval Office, or he's the bad guy or he's being blackmailed in some way into letting his presidential legacy go down in flames (or all three) but whatever way you see it, he KNOWS people worldwide now see him as the bad guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He is simply the silver-tongued conman the Top500 Mafia-owned corporations hired to stand in front of the US Public and lie about whatever they tell him to lie about, and he's probably the best liar to ever sit in the Offal Office.
He's just doing a really difficult job for a really big pile of money. What could be more American than that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope these are helpful
It is only in the pilot program. There is time to stop this especially with elections coming.
Some of my previous articles about this program.
http://lnkd.in/bTsQUmV
http://lnkd.in/JwgsC7
http://lnkd.in/bgmQZrt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hope these are helpful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Slight change there, the ones in charge of (insert country government here) don't particularly care about the country, as they demonstrate time and time again, but only their power and authority.
A corrupt government may fall, while the country lives on, but since they see themselves not as the government, but the country, to them, the two are indistinguishable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No wonder the government wants to take both away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They certainly can be, along with most everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, is that what that's called?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-PIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, is that what that's called?
"Because of the increasing usage of Resident Registration Number for on-line services make it open for the rampant identity frauds and inefficiencies, it is a comprehensive new way for South Korean internet users to engage the web."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
already has been done....
You already have to have a real drivers license to drive a car and they call it a privilege, so now is the government going to force us to use there ID and tell us the internet is a privilege?
Now i wait for them to tell us that "skynet" is now real and going online in the near future......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: already has been done....
The British did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: already has been done....
...OpenID Places Security Responsibility in Wrong Place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean, every place where you're currently asked for your social security number.
Or every place where they currently ask to see a government-issued photo ID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online ID
I have read and re-read Revelation multiple times, trying to figure out what exactly the mark of the beast will be. To me, it looks as though it is the internet. If you look at Revelation 13:16-17 it says "It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."
When you think of someone who's never seen or used a computer, and the fact that most of us are right-handed, if you read that passage, can you see how it could be used to describe using a computer (holding a mouse with your right hand)?
Now, with governments worldwide trying to create an "internet ID" that would make sure you are you when interacting with any website online, including buying or selling, and how easy it would be to then force people to get a physical ID to carry with them to augment the online ID when buying or selling, it seems to shoehorn directly into a mark of the beast.
Your thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online ID
That is what gets you in the hot water.
You may receive any mark upon your body so long as you do not have to turn away from the Lord to receive it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online ID
I see a number of problems:
1) A mouse is not a mark.
2) Even if it is a mark it isn't on your hand, it's in your hand. This may seem like word parsing but if you're a literalist, you're going to have to interpret things literally. You can't have it both ways.
3) It's unlikely you would use a mouse to enter an ID, you would most likely use your keyboard. To be fair, if it was a purely numerical ID you could use the keypad on the right side of your keyboard, presumably with your right hand.
4) A keypad is not a mark.
5) Even if a keypad is a mark it isn't on your hand, it's in your hand.
6) A deeper problem: why is the bible to be interpreted literally? The literal truth of it is an assumption based on nothing. There's no more reason to take it literally than there is to read a poem by Baudelaire literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Online ID
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist, but use the bible as a philosophical and/or moral document (ie. NOT literally).
For example:
The mark does not have to be physical, especially in the modern world, to be a mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Online ID
It will be nearly impossible to buy and sell anonymously, Which, I argue, is the intent..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Online ID
Metadata anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online ID
Bible warned us 2000 years ago for this event , and people say there's no God. It is so obvious ! It is a bit scary to see these events happening, to be honest I thought they will come much more later !
Just look at today's technology, it sure goes toward the RFID chip ( which also already exists now ) , so humans will be chipped, and totally controlled.
Anyone who reads this : before you say Im stupid just read not the whole Bible, but the Revelations . Jesus is coming back soon, better prepare for it !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online ID
Your entire thesis rests on the false presumption that this "beast" is a real entity. It's no more real than the Easter Bunny.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose this program. Worrying that it's the sign of some battle between imaginary sky-warriors is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Online ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Online ID
Not saying either side is right or wrong here, but this program does have some eerie similarities to Revelations, just sayin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, no thanks, feel free to fuck right off with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that means doing with out those services or accessing one place over another so be it. I'll do with them.
Now here is the government once again attempting to short circuit that right of control. Even worse is they are saying we won't give your data out because we aren't holding it.
Near every few months it's heard that this or that data base is broken into or some worker has had his laptop stolen who just happened to take his work home. Several TBs of personal info from that database where he works at has come up missing.
Thank you but no thank you. This is a terrible idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The final straw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The final straw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSTIC
There is no "internet driver's license". The proposal is for people to have one or more digital identities, from 3rd party Identitty Providers, which can be used around the 'net. Things like Facebook ID, Google ID, Apple ID or that from any website willing to be a guarantor of that ID. It's all about Federated Identity (aka Web Single Signon).
Get your facts straight before attempting to inflame the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSTIC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSTIC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSTIC
His having an account with Techdirt or any other entity is non-sequitur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSTIC
I have no "social" accounts, so I don't have one of those. My Techdirt account is a bad example, as it's completely unnecessary to have an account to use the site. And if it were necessary, it's more like a ticket to a particular venue than a uniform ID card.
"The NSTIC and related IDESG are not trying to get everyone to use a federated ID but would like to make the one you do use"
They're not? I thought they specifically do want to get everyone to use such ID. They just don't have the power to require it anywhere except on government sites. BTW, I do not use federated ID services of any sort, so they can't improve the one I do use.
"How about if you didn't have to sign away all user controls if you "like" something."
Well, since I don't use Facebook, I don't personally care one bit about the "like" buttons. I rather suspect that people who do use Facebook don't care so much about these issues (or they wouldn't be using facebook).
"It might be about those holding data being responsible to you as opposed to their shareholders."
How does federated ID do this?
"A number of real and important differences might surface if you actually did more than parrot last week's paraphrase of the effort."
Now, now, no need to get insulting. I'm asking honest and legitimate questions. By the way, I've actually been following these issues (including federated ID) for years. I'm not just parroting last week's paraphrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSTIC
It is an invitation to set up a nick names to identify yourself on this site, and does not require a validated identity. In fact with a little effort, someone can register on this site while remaining anonymous, while using a pseudonym on posts when signed in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSTIC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice job guys
If you want a start-up opportunity, find a country in Europe with iron-clad privacy laws, and start a secure email and proxy service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice job guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Party Time at the NSA!
Yeah, I can see the advantages of it-but not to users. Advertisers, government agencies and hackers will all have a blast getting our data for free without any kind of silly nonsense about privacy!
Oh, and by the way, you can kiss the idea of 'anonymity on the internet' good bye forever, and all the associated workarounds that people have been using.
Because once the government does this, it's gone forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA Agent 2: Sssh we aren't allowed to call them criminals yet, at least not until the NSA-knows-best amendment is passed anyway and yes I did notice this ..what about it?
NSA Agent 1: Well, what if we setup a COMPULSORY system where people have to select a username and password...but WE CONTROL IT ENTIRELY?
NSA Agent 2: I Like where you're going with this, so we'd have access to a good percentage of our adversaries, ...oops..'citizens' passwords we could use to access even encrypted websites? Awesome . But until we do that how about we trump up some charges against a few teenagers and see if we can make them kill themselves?
NSA Agent 1: Thats so last year.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gov Spook #1: "This guy is asking some hard questions and speaking some unpleasant truths."
Gov Spook #2: "Disable his ID"
It's about control. The government will be able to ban you from the Internet if they don't like you, and it'll also take away anonymity and privacy to scare people into watching what they say. As long as you parrot the approved propaganda your ID will remain intact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have in-person and on-paper options for every single thing you might need to do in interacting with the government.
Get up off your lazy butt and find a stamp.
And guess who's "at an all-time low" in trusting the government these days? Right-wing racist a**hole Republicans who can't stand having a Democrat in the White House. I won't say my trust of the government is 100% or even 75% but that's true no matter who is in office. The big hue and cry about it NOW is coming chiefly from those mouthbreathing malcontents. And I. DO NOT. CARE. Most things that piss them off are winners in my book, because THEY piss ME off. Saying I'm not a real American. Saying I'm a traitor and deserve to die. JUST because I'm a liberal, no other reason. Screw them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have any idea how fast you were downloading that file?
Internet Driving license and computer registration, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The current administration is amazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The current administration is amazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be Aware..privacy alerts here...
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2014/03/virtual-worlds-real-world-we-have.html
Here's what I said about the pathetic White House report too. I have an on going campaign that every data seller, banks, companies, etc. should have to buy a license so we know who they are and can index them and a license would work and bring tons of companies out of hiding.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2014/05/white-house-privacy-report-privacy-bill.html
The World Privacy Forum was good that was referenced a little in the White House report though...I blogged it too as it addresses "the scoring of America" and the whole world is watching..
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2014/04/world-privacy-forum-report-scoring-of.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, the timing for this IS terrible. It's not a bad idea, it's just we shouldn't be getting it until we can trust the government to not sell out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Older than That ...
Questions About Nationwide Identity Systems", March 16, 2006. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/.../IDs_Not_That_Easy.asp
As Vice President and Chief Scientist / Information Security / BBN Technologies, Steve was asked to chair the Committee on Authentication Technologies and Their Privacy Implications, National Research Council / The National Academies. The Committee originally planned to write a paper titled "Who Goes There?"; in the process, they found the issue of establishing identity to be complex enough to warrant another paper (title above; both are linked to in the testimony).
Ad yes: it's STILL a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Licence
This is something that is too often done in politics. They seem to always have a hidden agenda, and work at convincing the people they have proper reason for what they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Merely slapping each fascist scheme one by one is not the answer. They have patience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, What's Wrong, Lefties? There's No Right Turn Here!
Now, you Lefties and Righties and all else, what's got your tongues?
Whining over what you blindly cheered for now is really dumb.
But, the banksters who actually run the White-wash House are laughing out loud, now. Your only hope is to get the facts straight, but it's kinda late. Don't ya think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's Gov?
Manta, "only lists publicly owned companies";
http://www.manta.com/search?search_source=nav&pt=&search_location=Saint+Petersbur g+FL&search=white+house
(Hint; It's why Mr. Obama can resign @ The Hague, then go back to work in D.C. The next day!)Put ANY alphabet agency in their search engine for a surprise.
They're all privately owned companies, 'posing as our governmeant'. It is a legitimate way of finding out & also works on the Dun & Bradstreet site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
media silent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one license is no different than One World Order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subject
And private underground networks would spring up everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"internet drivers license"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fun prank
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fragmentation may not be new, to polarize the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License?
F*** the White House!
F***the Supreme Court!
F*** Washington, D.C.!
F*** the NSA!
They no longer work for us. They work for the jue world odor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Final Nail In The Coffin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our founders also said if we cease to become a Christian and republic we will cease to have the proper checks and balances and fall as a nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a result of having no morals we now need a *boot on your neck* type of law enforcement or we will have anarchy as people don't know what to do with freedom.
This driver's license is just the beginning. Next they will make it so insurance for driving is so expensive you will HAVE to have a self driving car then they can *end you* if you vote too far to the right to their liking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]