Slashdot Mirror
Liberty Alliance Gains Momentum
kabanossen writes "News.com reports that AOL is joining the Liberty Alliance, which is a coalition of tech companies who are creating an alternative to Microsoft's Passport. Other members of the alliance are Sun, Nokia, Real Networks and General Motors "This provides a common language for authentication to ensure no one company controls the single authentication network" said a rep. " Mmmm...open standards. Hopefully.
Like AOL is in the forefront of open standards
I just don't know which monopoly to cheer for!
With the track record of AOL, the last thing we need is people running software similar to AoHeLL on the new authentication system, and hijacking people's accounts.
Yeah, those companies thrive on open standards.
Admit it. Its one big corporations proprietary system or another.
Microsoft has Passport. This alliance offers another alternative. Both push our society towards a "know your neighbor", or perhaps "know your customer" model.
I remember a few years ago there being a pretty significant backlash against banks attempting the "Know your customer" model of business.
Let's not forget the "None of the above" option when contemplating these systems. Identification of a person is not always necessary or prudent, for a multitude of reasons.
I'm thinking we should give in. All MS needs now is a good millitary. We could be now known as "The United States of America sponcered by MicroSoft"
Is this going to be "open standards" just like AOL's instant messenger is open standards? :)
Well, that would be sorta perfect for Ximian's mono! And if that "Liberty" thing is really open, what are the advantages of using Microsoft? People claimed that Mono was bad because it would force people into using passport - now if this Liberty thing works out, and somebody makes it work with Mono...
:)
Great idea!
Any sites or tips about the minimum info to supply
in registering for Passport?
sorry, but I don't want AOL to have my credit card info, just as I don't want Microsoft to have it.
when will these companies learn that we don't want a huge easily hackable database with all of our info in it? I'm quite happy memorizing my credit card number and providing it only when I feel it's necessary. With these passport like services, it's way too easy for a company to get you to sign in to get free service, and then simply start billing you after 'n' days, since they already have your credit card info, etc, in their database... At least now they have to send you a bill, or at the very least you have to provide a credit card number for a free trial...
I personally don't care if it's Microsoft, or some other tech company... I don't feel overally confident that a huge database with all of our info in it on the web is not going to get hacked...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
So we now have two choices: a) give away our identities to a monopoly and depend on them to do even basic banking or b) give away our identities to a cartel (er... uh... alliance) and depend on them... Why can't we each just have control of our own identity instead of depending on .NET or some clone of .NET?
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
This is better than no competition for Passport but not so good as if there were some aggressive and international lobbying and development of public, universal and non-proprietary authentication. This is like watching Fed Ex and UPS duke it out over who gets to run the U.S. Mail.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Why isn't a Linux company signing up (like RedHat)? That would give the project a little more clout in terms of a clearly defined software platform ... rather than, say, "Liberty Alliance for Windows", which would have to compete with a passport icon already on the desktop.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Sorry, but I can't see where this will be a whole lot better.
Okay, yeah, we definately know that AOL will provide the IM:) But what are the odds of a patent-free, royalty free standard? Zero. Check out the faq.
To be verified to use their tech, you'll likely have to either pay an exorbitant fee to join, pay an exorbitant 'license fee', or both.
Of course, there is no problem with charging to validate against, say, an AOL server, or store information there. But can even DEVELOPMENT occur without significant costs? No.
The only selling point to this seems to be "we're not Microsoft".
(And again, could somebody please explain the advantages? Most people on the street I've spoken with don't seem interested in having anybody store their CC and other personal information. And before you mention banks and credit card companies, most people would be quite pleased if they didn't have the info either.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I haven't been keeping up with this, and (I admit it) I'm too lazy to read the article carefully. What is the Liberty Alliance's stance on centralization? I certainly don't want Microsoft holding all my info on a centralized server, but I don't trust any of these folks all that much more. I'd really rather have it on my own machine, encrypted, with very specific as-needed permissions for releasing individual details. This should work in such a way that a malicious third party finds it difficult to cross-reference, say, my e-mail account and my medical records having retrieved each individually.
So where does the Liberty Alliance stand on this? Are my wishes way beyond the scope of this project -- is it a question of "which faceless corporation's basket do you trust with all your eggs"?
I found this part of the release rather interesting:
Libery Alliance conference attendants noted an unusual episode at the conference where Oracle Chairman Larry Ellison showed up midway with a crew of Oracle employees chanting "Oracle today makes Osama go away!"
Later, Ellison offered his company's support and participation in the alliance efforts.
"Oracle would be proud to donate our leading Oracle database software to the alliance project," said Ellison. "To us, it's a matter of killing too birds with a single stone. With the power of Oracle 9i, Liberty's registration information would also serve as a national citizen ID database, protecting all of us from the evils of terrorism."
White House spokespersons had no comment on Oracle's previous offer of its database for a national registration system.
*scoove*
This idea still provides a single point of failure for targetting hacking and DDoS attacks. Regardless of who controls it, one single authentication network is a horrible idea. It is doubtful that Passport will gain any serious momentum, since there have already been numerous attacks on the service. I have yet to see any services which support Passport outside of MSN, and I will never sign up for a Passport or a "Liberty Alliance" account or any other single point of failure.
Yeah, real proponents of open standards and technologies... :-(
Perhaps the Liberty Alliance group is taking their public relations cues from politics - it sounds 'shameful' to turn down something called 'The Patriot Act' regardless of what its details are. Maybe they are aiming for the same kind of thing in defeating passport.
[Note: I was unable to determine if this post is a trollish type thing. I guess the moderators will tell me.]
Mmmm...open standards. Hopefully.
Someone take the crack pipe away from Hemos.
These will be competing proprietary standards to M$'s dontNET lockin standard. To prevent M$ from embracing, extending and extinguishing, all the key pieces will be protected with patents and trademarks and every other bit of legal jiggery they can use. Just like with JAVA, the liberty *ack* *gagh* alliance will not allow these to become free and open standards, they will smack any free version in order to create a legal precedent for when (not IF) they have to go after M$.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Why does it seems like this is just an example of other companies doing things to spite MS? Other than talk, I haven't seen any real advantages to this. Won't having just one password make it that much easier for hackers? If Liberty Alliance is so good, then why is AOL still developing it's own system? Why are there more questions than.. well you get the idea. When someone can show how such a set up can be easy and safe, I'll buy in to it. Until than it is just another "promising tech".
Other members of the alliance are Sun, Nokia, Real Networks and General Motors
GENERAL MOTORS?!?!?!
okie-dokie...
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
The bottom line was: since a lot of people here in Sweden use internet banking, and we all hope it is really secure, then your internet bank account would be one safe way of identifying you. So why not make banks account the basis of a net passport? Rather that than make Microsoft the key to my bank account!
AOL == time warner. Pretty big company? I don't have any numbers, but it seems to me that Time is probably not tiny.
Between Time and GM, that is some pretty big backing. No offense, but the rest really are small beans. But with some truly massive corporations backing a hopefully open standard, that could really provide some serious competition to M$, if they can deliver.
Check this faq.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Ebay now allows authentication via passport. Logging in from a win2k box or winxp box for ebay is automatic.
It's too AOL is so myopic about standards. On the one hand you have Mozilla and perhaps this and then on the other you have AIM.
email address and a new password
I hope I'm wrong on this, but the more I look at this, the more I am reminded of "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" (with due apologies to perl fans and desert dwellers). The Liberty Alliance has all these companies signed up, but it seems pretty vaporous in terms of technical specs, marketing efforts, or much else. Time will tell on whether something real actually comes out of this, but I always get nervous when the hype-to-meat ratio is as high as this. Sort of reminds me of voting machines a year ago - everyone was talking about doing something but there was little/no agreement on what a voting machine should do. Six months later, most of the talk had gone away.
I've got the karma to burn, so let me just don my "Captain Obvious" hat here...
America Online? Open standards? You're joking, right?
I seriously doubt that I need to explain myself here.
And don't even think about pointing me in this direction.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
I just don't get all this. We do not need a centralized personal information system. That much is apparent. Not from Microsoft and not from anybody else.
These companies are doing all this stuff just for the sake of *doing* it, to spite and fight Microsoft. Nothing more.
While I'm not blind to the fact that whoever controls all this information will have a measure of power, it remains to be seen if people actually buy into the whole thing. Microsoft may claim 88 gazillion-trillion Passport subscribers, but how many of those are really one-time half-filled and fake entries used to get a temporary spamming Hotmail account? How many people are actually dumb enough to store their credit card information in a Passport (or whatever)? With all the negetive press e-commerce site hack-ins have received in the past few years I'd be surprised this constitutes any significant percentage of Passport users, even among clueless computer users.
The whole industry is overestimating this supposedly "next killer thing" for the Internet. But, predictively enough, the lemmings have all decided to jump over the cliff together. Well then, let them be squashed together.
Keep all the data local, but allow third parties to access it. I choose that SomeShop.com may read my creditcard and address info and if it changes, they automatically have the new data when they request it.
Even better, they would not have to store my details themselves. I do a lot of e-shopping and there are quite a few e-commerce shops that store my creditcard info. To be honest, I couldn't even name all the stores that do without going through my creditcard invoices.
The FSF or another capable OSS team should join this Alliance (that, or I should stop being lazy, start being capable and start coding).
I have no problem with third parties accessing an encrypted database through encrypted channels, served by an open source applications running on my own server. Yes, it's still vulnerable, but it puts the vulnerability and control in *my* hands.
Hm, but I will continue to be lazy. And the FSF would never create a cross-platform wallet that integrates with the 90% desktop OS. I guess our best hopes are with this Alliance?
(on the other hand, I've placed hundreds of orders in the past years with a creditcard and unless I'm really making so much money that I don't even notice, my card hasn't been abused a single time)
This is just the illuminati trying to pull an early "April Fools" joke.
You see, the trilateral commission will be the catalysts in the AOL-TW, MS merger, and you'll just use a combo of both systems to be placed in the "Illuminated Global Persons Network" (Codenamed Minotaur).
-ConspiracyTheorist : They are watching!
Democracy is totalitarianism. Passport is isolation. Alliance is dictator. Anti-Terrorism is control.
Truth. Lie.
They are building standard for centralized identification.
At the first sight this might be not like MS passport, but the key point is the same: all your data is stored with one company for identification.
But is this the right direction altogether ?
Wouldn't it much better but create distributed authentification systems. These systems could provide decent (and working) anonymisation, because some parts wouldn't have enough information to compromise your anonymity.
They would be more reliable due to being to centralized and they could be really used even for local identification.
Would it be clever and useful to retrive always data from microsoft just for local print jobs etc.
Yes, of course, you don't need today passport/derivatives for local identification, and yes in can be done in the old way. But all passport like systems won't even have the possibility to handle such things.
They are not scaleable to fine grained levels.
Only big stuff, credit card alike.
And so they'll fail because I think someone will create and distribute approach which is better and only the wind of the desert will howl at the ruins of passport and liberty.
(And when noone does it, I'll do it and all written in assembler which won't work just to punish you lazy goats.)
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
great- even more spyware to collect my personal data and raise the purchase cost based on my demographics and browsing habits.
Are we looking in the window and not seeing the diference between the pigs and the humans?
(reference to G. Orwell's Animal Farm)
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
But if you go on to read the rest, you'll find that they are unveiling a common framework. This way the information remains decentralized -- everyone would only collect the info they need and have their own policies regarding to whom and how they reveal that information.
Much better.
the most ***important*** sentence in the article
"The sober truth is that although consumers are bothered by multiple user IDs and passwords, most consumers don't see much relative value in having one credential to navigate the Web," Avivah Litan, vice president and research director for Gartner, said in a statement.
before "single sign on" becomes useful, let's consider just some of things that don't exist now, that are needed to make it useful/valuable/necessary...to Joe/Jane Average
1. micropayments - we've been talking about them for years..still no standards, still no positive participation from the major central banking systems..PayPal has had to fight to get as far as it has
2. user authentication - biometrics are coming along nicely, but they have no useful installed base to speak off, and the first gen laptops with biometric user control has no way to "authenticate" the user
3. encryption - no agreement on standards, with the US Gov fighting ANY kind of suggestion to implement standard encryption of email, and pushing for "back doors" in every type of system they can
4. trust - who do you want to have access to ALL your confidential info - Armey, Bush, Case, Daschle, Ellison, Gates, Gephardt, Levin, McNealy, Murdoch, Rather, Redstone?????? All of these individuals (and their respective orgs) have been repeatedly shown to be driven by, UH, "goal achieveing orientation" and NOT by "philosophical/ethical/moral orientation"
5. Systems Security - even if you perceive that you trust the above folk to know that you peruse "Teletubbie FreakySex Sites" or "Death, The Beginning of your New Love Life" newsgroups,
ALL of these orgs have systems with major security flaws...so even with the "best of intentions"...chances are the whole world will find out what you did with that purple teletubbie doll...(and if you keep the video in "My Pictures" we can probably all watch it, too).
i just attended MS Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles, where PassPort "single sign on" was a BIG push by the MS marketeers...most of the attendees couldn't have cared less
it's much more likely that after all the members of the "Billionaire Boyz Klub" are done with wrangling over "single sign on" as a way to insure "vendor lock in", that the G will step in, and shove their vision of this down ***EVERYBODIES" throats..."for our own good", of course
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
As of now, three sites I use utilize passport for authentication. I log into one, then I'm in all three. Ebay, Hotmail, and Expedia. Sure, this makes things a bit faster, but as other posters have pointed out, it also makes a single point of entry that hackers can focus in on. My university is going to a single-authentication scheme that actually seems to be pretty secure, but I wouldn't trust that to the whole internet.
The solution seems obvious. Expanding and integrating password tracking features into browsers. The w3c would be wise to set this down as a standard. This way, a user could store CC, mailing info, and passwords for *any* site they wanted. As of now, the best implementation of this is Mozilla (that i've seen) because it automatically fills in the form fields when you return to a page. (IE requires you to click on the field and choose from a dropdown box.) This to me gives the ease of single login (because in *nix, you have to log in, and in XP the default is to require each user to log in.) But, you don't have the problems of the passwords (or other personal information) stored at a website.
Heck, you could almost do this with cookies, at least for things like mailing address and cc info. This is where I think amazon failed. Why store CC and mailing information in a database on the web when you can just store it as a cookie?
Am I way off base on this, or does this actually make sense. This is how I manage my many different logins, but of course if uninstall/reinstall mozilla, I've got to retype it. It would be nice if this was actually a package on the browser, and I could save (and backup) this information, and be able to restore it, or even better, copy it over to another browser if I want.
Why do I even want sites to know who I am immediately when I log on? Sure it's nice for them to save my preferrences and so forth, but I like putting in my CC# every time I purchase. I'd prefer info like that not to be saved anywhere. (Even if it is client side I clear that out regularly) And my preferences are already stored via any cookies I choose to accept. I don't like any sort of push to take the control from my capable hands to those of a large (or a mixture of large) corporations. Plus the day I see my options between going with MS Passport of and initiative including *shudder* AOL, is a sad day indeed.
Warning, warning, you will not be allowed to log onto this website because you are using a non-ms operating system!
vs.
Warning, warning, you will not be allowed to log onto this website because your ISP is not AOL!
Doesn't really seem like a choice to me.
But then again, maybe I'm missing the point, it happens...
-Q
"I was not put on this earth to listen to meat! Frylock..were you?" -Master Shake
It sounds like the Liberty Alliance is trying to create a set of common standards and not, as many people are freaking over, a second centralized database.
.NET is a good thing I think.
If they can come up with a decentralized yet intercompatible way of authentication then they might be on to something positive! Anything that can be done to prevent a Microsoft having a total strangle hold with
They should use XNS (http://xns.org). It's here today and it works. Otherwise, it'll take them to long to reinvent the wheel and Passport wins.
Hmmm good point- is it really that hard for me to enter my info for each site, if not for each purchase? I guess it's the old security vs. usability thing- though security is probably the better way to go with all the info needed to charge your CC! That reminds me, I *really* have to get a new low limit CC just for web purchases..
Is this good news or bad news? It's getting hard to tell these days, with both Microsoft and AOL in it.
The universe is held together with duct tape and karma. What goes around, comes around, and gets stuck to your forehead.
Check out dotGNU's virtual identities. They're very early in the process, still considering proposed solutions, but I'm willing to bet that what they eventually come up with will be both really open and better than either passport or liberty.
Does anyone else find it disturbing that AOL has risen to be our defender against Microsoft. They can't be the hero. They've been evil *far* longer than Microsoft. And they actually hire intelligent people. I think the people that work at AOL must get paid minimum wage, because that's all they're worth.
Granted, AOL can't be entirely blamed for the idiocy of its user base (and there are smart people who have no other choice) but AOL is responsible for more landscape filling with their CD coasters than MS has been with their inflated OSs.
Maybe this shouldn't be a standard. The whole idea behind this is to make YOUR information PUBLIC. Ideally it should only be accessible by you, but we all know how hacking works.
Why isn't anybody creating some free software so you can setup your own server for yourself or your company. It just needs to be a little server, with SSL and some basic security measures (no buffer overflows).
The whole idea is you'd have access to information from multiple locations. We all know the original MS ideas behind why they want to implement this, and it's not to make our lives easier. These other corporate entities simply see how they can make money off this and they also know there is more money to make if they can usurp power from MS instead of joining them.
Honestly, what about these services would make your life easier? Answer that question, there's YOUR solution, most likely it's the solution for MANY people, so write the software that meets YOUR needs. Make it open source and/or free and let many people benefit. I'm sure one cable modem connection could more than handle the load of a mid-size company looking up contact information.
Authenication is used to answer for sure the question "Who am I talking to?" That's ALL an authentication service should do by default. If a user feels comfortable giving more info to the service so they don't have to type in forms, then let them, but I for one won't give them the info, or do any shopping at sites that won't let me type my cc number directly to them over https. My main reason is that I don't want to wonder if I accidentally bought something by clicking on a suspiciously vague button. I confidently explore web sites clicking on whatever, knowing that I will not be charged unless I take out my wallet. This is much more valuable to me than the convenience that woudl be provided by a centralized system. For things like micropayment for content I would rather see a company run special accounts where I could deposit say $10.00 to be used for that purpose. Then I know I won't be defrauded too badly by whatever unscrupulous pr0n site I happen to be on.
"This provides a common language for authentication to ensure no one company controls the single authentication network" said a rep. "
Right, no one company other than AOL.
second society
What always suprised me with these kinds of developments, is how easily people skip step 2, i.e.:
...)
1. Someone starts doing X (where X = passport, p2p, XML,
2. ?
3. everyone sees X as a necessity, and is trying hard to not be left out.
So, we are already assuming we won't be able to live without these authentication networks, but noone along the line ever asked why? Am I the only one who finds this funny (or sad, your pick)?
Is it THIS easy to make a whole planet go along with a phenomenon without using basic brain functions?
Mmmm...open standards. Hopefully.
Sorry, but this was a bad idea when Microsoft ahd it, and it is still a bad idea. Developing and 'open standards' version of an unnecessary, intrusive and ripe-for-abuse system does not make it any less of these things.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
Who came up with that corny name? Makes me think of a super hero team =P
Warning, warning: You may not log on this webpage because you don't agree that all if your personal information is stored centrally.
[And because I live in Germany, they actually have to ask me prior to doing this. Opt-in is mandatory. Well, by law, anyway...]
And we're supposed to believe they are "the good guys"? I find it hard to believe that a vast consorcium of commercial businesses is what freedom lovers would like to depend on.
Can be read "Ford, MS to offer build-it-yourself cars " in this news
If Microsoft can join Ford, why GM can't join Aol?
But what if General Motors Were Like Microsoft?
-= If you fight Dragons long enough, you will become a Dragon =-
The irony of course is that it took Microsoft to piss them enough to do this. So in fact Microsoft deserves credit no matter which one takes hold.
How many of you are guilty of re-using your passwords on various sites. All it takes is one of those sites to be stupid and store your password in plaintext somewhere. As soon as someone gets ahold of it, just build a spider that tries your login on every site that requires one.
If joeblow.com gets compromised, maybe I won't find out until something odd shows up. Whereas if Passport or the new thing gets broken into, I'm sure sparks will fly.
In these times, I can't believe people are saying something called the "Liberty Alliance" is a bad thing. Dear God, you people must all be atheist, Communists. Or maybe Muslim extremists. I will support the good old US of A by letting anyone and everyone associated with the Liberty Alliance have all of my personal information. It's the patriotic thing to do!
Some people are just too cynical...
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
No one seems to be taking to task that the big thing to worry about, that this is just a way to rope us in so that when Windows goes to a subscription service, they'll have an easy way to charge us. In fact, I didn't much mind using passport to log into sites... I mean, at worst, a hacker can read my hotmail account. However, when they started talking about web services and tying that into the OS, I knew I had to get away (I've since been working to get rid of my hotmail account and been moving to the mozilla browsers. I can't bring myself to use linux yet... I just don't like it as much as winXP.)
.NET soley to passport, that's yet another reason that no one will go with other solutions.
Granted, having to pay $10 a month to keep using our computer sounds insane, but for most users (who, btw, will already have their CC info stored with MS) they're probably not going to notice, and not know they have an alternative.
Indeed, if MS ties
Will splitting up the company alleviate this? Probably not. I mean, AT&T was split up 20 years ago into a bunch of little companies. Now look at them. They own half the local service in the country, plus a bunch of cable companies.
the three tax related government bodies would require a special identity certificate... that can only be provided (and verified) by your bank.
In Code and other laws of cyberspace, Lessig talks about something just like this. Using digital certificates to indentify yourself online. The problem comes in when said certificate contains things like a "geographic location" field. Then, a gambling site hosted in Las Vegas can be forced to decline you access if you are living in Iowa, and other such abuses.
This is even without getting into the problems if something like this became prevalent to the point that you got this certificate from your ISP, and were required to have it to go online. Then you could be tracked *everywhere*.
Yeah, I can think of ways to preserve anonymity, like a "certificate proxy server" hosted someplace out of the reach of US law, but I'd rather not have to deal with it at all.
Do you really mean that one in six americans is handicapped? I guess that means that we need to lose more up front parking...
What OS do you want to abuse today?
You see, the trilateral commission (Fnord!) will be the catalysts in the AOL-TW, MS merger, (Fnord!) and you'll just use a combo of both systems to be placed in the "Illuminated Global Persons Network" (Fnord!) (Codenamed Minotaur). (Fnord!)
And we would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids! Fnord!
Microsoft claims that they already have several hundred million Passport users, on the strength of the fact that all Hotmail users are automatically signed up for a Passport.
However, how many people actually use Hotmail for serious email? I doubt foxychic52@hotmail.com and hot_guy334@hotmail.com really provided accurate information when they signed up for their Hotmail accounts...
Now, if GM/AOL wanted to somehow integrate liberty-alliance-passport into their AOL or GMC Yukon... Then they'd have an edge.
Say, a gas station that gets a signal from a chip in your car, presto, you've just paid for gas. Heck, get this required by law, and you've solved the "gas and go" problem.
Open standards? I think not.
AOL might as well own the proposed "Liberty Alliance" partners. This is crap.
Microsoft may claim 88 gazillion-trillion Passport subscribers, but how many of those are really one-time half-filled and fake entries used to get a temporary spamming Hotmail account?
Very few. Hotmail deletes unused free accounts after 45 days.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Does anyone know anything about how this standard federated solution will be affected by the EU Privacy Directives?
Didn't they basically just make cookies illegal?
They support great projects like Mozilla, open sourced an excellent webserver, but play hardball over AIM.
If AOL wants to prove their commitment to open standards, then publish the AIM protocol under a royalty-free license. Be willing to put their money where their mouth is.
If you believe that a centralized data repository is a bad idea, and many of us do, then at least having other players in the game can produce enough fragmentation to keep us from being locked in to any one implementation.
..."
I find the idea of either of these groups becoming "the standard" equally repugnant, but as long as they continue to battle it out in the market place each protects us from domination by the other(s).
I would like to see it splinter into eight or nine competing implementations, in hopes that we won't see any (more) "You must sign up with A to use B, C, D,
That way, even if it does ultimately happen it will happen slowly enough that we can hope for a better implementation in the end.
is if I could store my "wallet" on an ethernet enabled Gibson! Instead of using a hat/box/whaterver for accepting pocket change, street performers could use a hub that onlookers would plug their Gibson into to make donations.
Liberty Alliance is not like Passport at all, at least not the consumer Passport most of you seem to be thinking of. Liberty Alliance is an open platform for corporate directory services for information exchange between companies. While most people who do business online will be recorded in a database powered by the Liberty Alliance, you will not have a Liberty Alliance account. This is not for the consumer like Passport is.
.NET as Microsoft is trying to push Passport as the all encompasing directory service and take control of the data away from the companies.
This will allow people who use your information (airline ticket counters, utilities, banks, whatever) to control their own directory services and choose what information to release or keep private. This is an issue with
This really doesn't involve you, the consumer, at all. I invite all of you "OMG I'M NOT GIVING MY CREDIT CARD TO AMERICA ONLINE THEY ARE HACKED ALL THE TIME!" knee-jerk reactionists to actually do some research at http://www.projectliberty.org/ and get a clue or two. Thanks!
When will companies realise that mass authentication simply doesn't work? It's supposed to make online purchasing easier for the average consumer. Aren't consumers doing that already? Many people use exactly the same password for each online shopping site they visit. I know my family does, despite my repeated protests at what might happen if someone snags the password. But after the Hotmail Passport grabber, having the same password seems more secure! The more sites that use mass authentication systems, the more crackers will find the holes and exploit them for all they are worth.
Humans rule! Dolphins can suck it.
Passport provides NOTHING useful in any way. Passport is actually HARMFUL to it's users, as it is an extreme danger.
We all know that, and even most non-computer oriented people can see that just as clearly, which is not surprising considering the nature of Passport.
As a programmer and web developer, I vow to never implement anything that in any way uses Passport(or a derivative)'s authentication mechanism or other ridiculous "features".
I promise I will let my company fire me before I would submit to this nonsense. I hope most of you would do the same.
Personally, I think Passport is doomed to fail. While MS might be able to force people to create a Passport account, Microsoft will never be able to force Passport upon other services, as there will be no benefit to using Passport.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
...spoil the broth.
Not that I'd use any of these services, but if I was, I'd rather be using Microsoft's service.
Think about it. You'd be giving your personal information and credut card information to one of these databases. With Microsoft, its just them. With this Liberty thing, look how many hands are in the cookie jar.
And I'm sure that this is going to get me labeled a troll, but open source might be worse than closed source. With the source open, anyone can look at it and find security holes. If the source is closed, its harder to find holes (not impossible, of course).
But do we really need these services? And how secure would it be anyway? You're probablly going to be using a password to get into the system. For the average user, they're going to be using a simple password that is easy for them to remember. Simple = easily broken.
It would be a lot more secure and useful to build a hardware system that would scan a card (MSR, probablly) and had a huge-ass "password", something like 128k, and ENCRYPTED the whole way. You've got the problem with losing the car, but then again you have the same problem with a credit card. Could this be the "killer app" of the "smart" credit card?
Dolphins Rule! Humans can suck it.
"Liberty Alliance"? I was expecting a story with John Ashcroft owning 51% of AOL or something and then doing something undermining our rights and such...
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Put another way, I do NOT have a good feeling about the industry increasingly turning into a bi-polar arrangement of "MS vs. Everyone Else". Reminds me a little too much of the US vs. USSR nonsense from the Cold War, with users playing the part of strategically located third world countries...
Of course, it's still better than MS owning everything.
I don't need to taste it to realize that this is shit too. Its shit from a different dog, or rather, from a group of (not necessarily) smaller dogs rather than Passport which is shit from one big dog. It is still shit.
And as far as that goes, I make my own shit. Almost daily. I have my own fuckin wallet. I have my own collection of my own personal information and I don't need to subscribe to any system that gives this responsibily for maintaing my personal records to someone else. ESPECIALLY A FOR PROFIT TRANSNATION SUPERPOWER COMPANY. Thanks but not thanks Liberty Alliance. I don't need your shit.
Many posters have suggested giving bogus information to the different Passport-esque services. I can imagine there being a point where I have a number of "Passports", each with different names & details. Then when I go to buy from or visit a site, I'll need to select from a list of who I want to seem to be and supply credentials to validate the choice.
So much for single sign-on!
As opposed to the way things are today with your personal information spread across 20 different databases with "questionable" security at best.
It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
Why is a one signin thing even needed? Why cant you just enter in your information when you _need_ to and for _only_ the company you want to. You know, the thing people have been doing long before Passport existed.
Maybe if people weren't so lazy...
Brielle
why are you rooting for AOL??? This is AOL/Time warner, you know, one of the people suing 2600. IMHO AOL is WAY more evil than microsoft. if you don't like passport, dont use it. use freenet! but dont say AOL and Sun's venture is better than microsoft just because it is not microsoft.
PayPal has had to fight to get as far as it has
Not sure what they're fighting against. Sure, the technical issues; but the real challenge is the cultural one.
People just haven't gotten acclimated to the new ways of doing business. My credit union has a web bill paying service, and I'm just barely considering going through the hassle of setting it up.
The possibility exists that, for all of the technical feasibility and convenience, society may NEVER achieve full-on cyberpunk dysco-topia.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Of course, it's still the way of the future, and at some point we'll all be pretty much forced to use something like this. That's not all bad, I certainly won't fight it, but I don't think it's necessary either. I definately don't trust MS with it, but I don't think I'd trust AOL with it either.
AOLs support will certainly make this a viable sollution, though, and the competition will hopefully benefit us little folks.
I'm just not sure how I feel about this whole thing.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I've been trying for a couple of weeks to reset my passport password (yeah, it's evil), but there site is always down when I try.... Gotta love their uptime :(
No one can be a wolf if people did not make themselves sheep. The masses are the ones who allow such an ID if they are tired of putting in User names and Passwords over and over.
It matters not if Microsoft or Liberty has the ID it matters that people know enough to realize that this is a bad Idea.
.
You Don't have to burn books to destroy a culture, you just have to get people to stop reading them. Ray Bradbury
I haven't sleep for nearly 24 hours, so I think this is going to be a bit of a random rambling... but I have to try...
)
;)
I understand that some people is very worried when some big companies get together to create some kind of universal authentication system...
But I think that at least some of the bashing against the "Liberty Alliance Project", especially based in the bad track of mega-corporation behavior of some of the members, is forgetting that there are also other members, like:
(from: http://www.projectliberty.org/chartermembers.html
- the Apache Software Foundation
- CollabNet
- O'Reilly & Associates
All this organizations have done a great job developing and promoting Open source and Free software.
Please, before bashing look more carefully at what are you bashing.
And of course we should always be careful when considering the movements of big corporations, but I think this is a big opportunity for all the people who wants to maintain
a free Internet, don't just discard it because you don't like some of the people promoting it.
Best regards
\\Uriel
P.S.: Now we only need that Freenet, OpenBSD, Debian, Xiph, FreeBSD, NetBSD, FSF, Internet Software Consortium, Gnome foundation, etc. join the project, and then thy have my permission to take over the world
P.P.S.: Seriously, it would be great to see Debian, FSF and ISC joining, and some Linux distributions wouldn't hurt either...
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
so when you have someone "borrow" your laptop, they can just order $500 worth of junk, coming straight out your bank account... Yikes!
"Piter, too, is dead."
sPh
Using a common layer of software tools, ISPs & content providers will be able to know who you are, what you're doing, and how much you owe for it. Think of the merger of a high-speed real-time multimedia Internet with your phone service (which is considered a necessary utility and which bills you differently for local access; local, interstate, and international long distance; and extra features like voice mail).
It's just a matter of time before you can get Internet Video Phone and Downloadable Streaming Pay-Per-View -- and pay Qwest-AOL-TimeWarner handsomely for the priveledge.
"It's an erotic, spectacular scene that captures the thrusting, violent, vibrant world Bohemian spirit..."
And with that HUGE risk, the consumer gains... absolutely nothing. The whole thing is simply Microsoft trying to gain control of what they want to become the gateway to everything on the Internet.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
As if Real Networks is worth being said in the same breath as these other major players.
Anyone here have Yahoo ID? Notice how it can be used to authenticate seamlessly with all yahoo services, such as Mail, News, Egroups, Geocities, Shopping, etc?. Ever seen a website with a "Powered by Yahoo!" Icon? guess what- your authenticated with your Yahoo ID. Did you also know that they are planning on providing Java based applications over the internet, such as an Office Suite? This Sounds a hell of a lot like .NET/Passport to me. Hell, Yahoo even uses your information for spam.
a Yahoo ID isn't vapourware either. It is here, now, works really well, and has passed the test of time. Yet no one has complained about Yahoo?. Of course Microsoft plans the same thing, and its the Evil Empire trying to take over the world.
Isn't this like the pot calling the kettle black?
How will the services be audited, under what criteria, by whom, and with what penalties for failing to meet the criteria?
And yes, I do think there should be a law about it - whether it's the application of an appropriate existing one or (shudder) a new one that takes account of the possibility - or should one say the service providers' intention - that the service will be used for a wide range of matters which have until now not been related or connected in any way.
he was actually just talking about your |33+ 59{{K
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
My other point being that the consumer gains NOTHING, NOT A GODDAMN THING FROM PASSPORT! So, no matter how small the risk, it's not worth it for the consumer.
Fucking dumbass...
this conversation is over, you're a moron...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Or that people just don't want to deal with the hassles of on-line and automated service. My bank has an online billing site, but I refuse to use it. I see no need to change how I pay bill, just because the new system will save the bank money. Computers for the sake of Computers is bad.
Will some sites deploy it? Sure. But any vendor that says "We only accept payment via MS Wallet" is committing suicide. As much as they wish you'd pay by credit card, even checks are accepted by most online businesses. No one is going to turn away money.
It will only be useful if it's super convenient- and practically everyone who buys stuff over the internet has accounts at all of the places they buy from consistently, making check-out a snap.
But on the other hand...
People routinely make convenience/security tradeoffs. If we were having this discussion 20 years ago credit cards would be pure evil to us. Having your credit card number stolen nowdays is an inconvenience rather than life ruining. And most of us have come to accept the fact that law enforcement can track our iron dildo purchases from the comfort of their desks if they wanted to.
In the absolute worst case most sites will simply feature a "Use my passport account" link above the "Create an account" link.
My how the world turns.
I get paid a healthy rate per hour. If I mentally pay myself for the effort of managing the books, outsourcing the bodily function of writing the out the checks seems worthwhile.
OTOH, good ol' fashioned bill paying might be a relaxing interlude for someone, in which case they certainly should eschew online payments.
I agree that computers are the means, not the end. Motive matters in this decision, as any other.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear