re White House Proposes Vast Federal Internet Identity Scheme

[Dave Farber <dfarber () me com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: lynn <lynn () ecgincc com>
> Date: June 27, 2010 5:25:03 PM EDT
> To: Andy Oram <andyo () oreilly com>
> Cc: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] re  White House Proposes Vast Federal Internet Identity Scheme

> I'd feel better if it was infosec people creating solutions and developing
> standards.
>
> As to cyber-terrorism, there is some real things going on out there. I
> don't deny that. But - the USG lumps anything they want under this label.
> I object to that too. There are some security solutions, but they are not
> always implemented.
>
> How does this OBM solution deal with ppl like me that have 20 or so free
> mailboxes under different names (for different purposes)? How do they deal
> with the stupidity of social engineering?
>
> Too many people think a p/w that is not their spouses/childs/pets nane or
> b-day is way too much to remember.
>
> There are too many unanswered questions. Perhaps the marketplace finding a
> solution(s) is better.
>
> Additionally, how will we ever have anonyminity? This is particularly
> important for whistle-blowers. Often I make up a user name for myself to
> stay anonymous. Lots of people do that for various good reasons.
>
> I liked things better 20 years ago - both on and offline :)
>
>
> > On the question why government should get involved-- I cover that in
> > "Why the OMB is taking on identity and privacy now." I don't totally buy
> > the arguments, but I'm trying to see it the way the Administration sees
> > it. On very narrow grounds, one can find reasons to support the
> > initiative, More broadly, if you follow tech news, you know there's a
> > lot of mainstream jitters about cyber-incidents and (not my term!)
> > cyber-terrorism, and this stuff is not paranoia. The government wants
> > solutions.
> >
> > I agree that government is usually more part of the problem than part of
> > the solution, when it comes to privacy. But we can either throw up our
> > hands and wait for the Revolution or use the levers available to
> > us--such as the FTC--to force the government to do what it can in a
> > positive way.
> >
> > On 06/27/2010 03:30 PM, lynn wrote:
> > > A quick couple of comments. First, how does anyone stop mission creep?
> > > If
> > > you have a good idea for this it ought to be implemented all over the
> > > government.
> > >
> > > There are already at least one paid and one or two free open-id system.
> > > People and sites are free to use them. Most sites don't, whether from
> > > ignorance, not caring, not wanting the additional code, or some other
> > > reason.
> > >
> > > If the government really cares about privacy then they ought to do
> > > something about their scanning online.
> > >
> > > I remember when they tied to do something about spam - resulting in more
> > > spam than ever.
> > >
> > > IMO it is best to educate users to demand it. Unfortunately many have
> > > the
> > > atitude of'I have nothing to hide so I don't care - let them
> > > look/read/whatever'.
> > >
> > > Personally I'd rather see them be more concerned with the voting system.
> > >
> > > Lynn
> > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Andy Oram<andyo () oreilly com>
> > > > > Date: June 27, 2010 10:30:47 AM EDT
> > > > > To: dave () farber net
> > > > > Subject: Re: [IP] White House Proposes Vast Federal Internet Identity
> > > > > Scheme
> > > >
> > > > > I feel strange having to oppose Lauren so strongly here, but to help
> > > > > staunch some of the FUD right off, I'll give your readers a look at a
> > > > > draft I wrote before it goes live:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://praxagora.com/andyo/draft/privacy_omb_directive.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Once I put up the blog I'll take down this draft, which might have to
> > > > > undergo changes (and I encourage readers to send me comments today).
> > > > >
> > > > > The Office of Management and Budget explicitly endorses anonymity for
> > > > > blog comments--Lauren's error here is just an example of how
> > > > > exaggerated
> > > > > he got in his rhetoric.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------
> > > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > > > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com