Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Considers Microsoft Passport as National ID
An anonymous submitter writes: "Ladies and gents, the endtimes have begun. The Seattle Times is reporting that Mark Forman, associate director of information technology at the White House (or 'America's CIO', as he bills himself) has said the feds are considering the use of Microsoft's Passport technology to ID every citizen and every business seeking access to government services online. This is about as scary as it gets." To be fair, it looks very preliminary. Read the article. So many companies have tried to assist the government in providing services over the Net... but I guess if your lobbyists are good enough, you can be heard at the top.
sPh
Now I can't imagine being unable to reenter the country because the Passport servers were down again. Grrrreat.
What's your damage, Heather?
So they're going to trust the information of every single citizen to a corporation that has a known criminal track record? That's intelligent. What next, find a crack dealer to handle international trade?
Yes, I realize the offenses are different... but this is still stupid. It federally mandates giving Microsoft business. Well, not really... if an alternate ID is available, they should accept that.
- Free tabletop fantasy gaming! Grey Lotus
You'll need to update Microsoft and have them reset your passport everytime you get a haircut..
Josh Woodward
not me. I'd rather fight the good fight here than freeze the rest of my life. Several loud people can arrange the future for the silent millions.
this sig is deprecated
Shouldn't the fact that the US government is still suing Microsoft weigh in, at least a little bit, on the choice of Microsoft for handling the national IDs?
Canada?
New Zealand?
Iceland?
The Netherlands?
Microsoft: Where do you want to go^H^H flee today?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Let's get beyond the FUD here. Passport is being considered as a means to authenticate users of US government services online. Nothing more. This is a far cry from a "national ID," which implies that citizens are required to have it. When was the last time you used US government services online? If the government wants to select Microsoft as a vendor for a particular service, I may think it's a bad business decision, but I don't think I can claim my rights are being violated.
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
Just wait until online voting happens and you can only vote if you register with their online services. And then taxes will only be paid online. Then passports will be requested online. Then you'll have to get your mandated federal ID online. Etc.
Sure, you're not worried now, but you always need to think about the next step.
--- witty signature
sPh
I swear to -god- my five year old has better reading comprension than some of you people.
The article mentions that is is for online services three times.
Quotes, with revelant words bolded for those of you who haven't finished 5th grade English yet.
"Microsoft's Passport is being considered as a way to authenticate users of the Web sites, said Mark Forman, associate director of information technology at the White House."
"The White House is instead pursuing an "e-identification" initiative, an effort to develop ways to authenticate people and businesses online who already have government identification numbers such as Social Security, business-registration and employer-identification numbers. "
"At the government-leaders conference, attended by representatives of 75 countries, Microsoft presented a blueprint for its "e-government" strategy that suggests they use Passport to verify the identity of visitors to their Web sites. It also suggested that its bCentral business Web site could be used to process business tax payments and that citizens could use its MSN Web site to handle address changes and voter registration"
---
Yes, its an amazingly laughable idea -- but its not the Big Brother in cahoots with Evil Bill Gates to steal all our privacy that the orignal poster makes it out to be.
http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?3357354385
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
So I can't read the article - the Seattle site seems to be already slashdotted...
But what exactly is going on here? I already see people worrying and having heart palpitations. The story submission says "Microsoft Passport technology" not Microsoft Passport.
In priniciple this just means that Goverment is going to start tracking people as they access goverment online services... kinda like they already do using our Social Security numbers in meat-space - and/or cookies set by goverment servers in cyber-space. (I think it would be foolishly naive to imagine that people aren't already being tracked.)
This is just a logical extension of what is already going on.
Good questions to ask: "Can a user opt out?" "What about users from other countries and locales?" "What is going to be done with the info?".
Who was it who said "Privacy is dead already - all we have anymore is obscurity." (Or something like that.) Obviously this is the direction we've been heading for quite sometime. Now we see clearly - before we saw through a glass darkly...
In illa quae ultra sunt
Where should we let you go today?
The speed of time is one second per second.
...suggest something truely undesirable and then fall back to what was desired by some in government in the first place but wouldn't have normally been accepted by the public -- a national ID
So, what are they supposed to use, a really big passwd file? OpenLDAP? Novell NDS? A big Oracle database? Why should we even care what the technology is, as long as it works?
But, the idea that you'll need to register in order to read government documents, now THAT is interesting, and somewhat troubling. But I couldn't care less what technology they use.
Unfortunately, all the Microsoft-hating government pawns around here seem to have missed the real point of the article.
If you're going to write, you should write Mr. Forman and his boss, in addition to your Congresscritters. Be sure to mention that by requiring Passport, the government is effectively forcing its citizens to use Microsoft's technology in order to access the public information. What happens if MS decides to start charging for Passport use? Will citizens then have to pay Microsoft to access public information? This is especially disturbing considering that the government is currently in ligitation against MS. I think part of the problem is that some government departments think it doesn't matter if some OTHER government department is in ligitation with MS. Make sure the people you write understand that you don't make that distinction. Try to equate MS with Enron, by asking if they would be so quick to adopt any of Enron products. After all, both companies used donations to affect policy, both companies have broken the law, and both companies are under investigation by the DOJ.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Because it would be a government publication and government publications cannot be copyrighted. Isn't that the case? Perhaps it you wouldn't call that open souce. But wouldn't it have to be openly documented and copyright free?
Nationalistic US crackers today announced that they had done the impossible - by revoking the PassPort account of Osama bin Laden, recently issued by the INS. An unnamed inside source was quoted as saying, "I didn't know there was ANY way to revoke a passport account. I wish I could use this technique to get rid of the extra accounts I get with every Microsoft purchase. But maybe not, after all my extra votes help on election day."
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Washington, D.C. (AP).- In a surprising turn of events, Americans have elected Bill Gates as President of the United States.
After a recount of all votes, Gates received 89 percent of all votes, leaving oponents Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Hanks with 3 and 2 percent each.
"It's hardly a surprise", said Steve Ballmer, campaign manager for Gates, "Bill has showed great leadership skills and built the greatest company in American history".
Ballmer then made a turnaround in his position about the infamous "Mother's Day documents", and admitted "there might be some truth to them".
The documents were published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an underground group that has been described as the political arm of hackers and ciberterrorists, and wer purported to have been obtained from Microsoft's internal servers. Gates and Ballmer denounced them as a fabrication.
"I guess we can tell you the truth now", said Ballmer, after Gates' voctory was official, "there might be something there".
The documents include a series of emails in which Gates, Ballmer and Microsoft's VP of legal affairs, John Ashcroft, discuss several courses of action in they won the election. Among them were: Change the countrys name to Microsoft States of América, change Gates's title from President to Chief Architect of Everything, and outlaw the use of any software not certified as "secure" by Microsoft Corp.
Critics have pointed to the posibility of electoral fraud, but the governmente has refuted the posibility.
"It's ridiculous. Preposterous", said a spokesman from the Electronics Elections Office. "We used Windows CE doubleplussecure 2018 for the polls machines, and Microsoft XXP Security-Above-All Server for the counting. These are the most secure systems in the world, and they're incapable of errors".
After being questioned on the possibility of a bug in the system, the spokesman refused to answer, pointing out that the recently passed Corporations Antidefamation Act expresely prohibits the discussion of any possible flaws in software products, lest they be used for ciberterrorism purposes.
And you can (online) in my state and locality:
* pay local traffic tickets,
* renew driver's licenses,
* renew vehicle registrations,
* pay property taxes,
etc.
Once a federal online ID becomes pervasive, it'll be used for every state and local online transaction also, just like SSN's filtered down to the state and local levels. And personally, I don't want M$ having all that info.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Thank you for taking your valuable time away from being wined, dined and brainwashed by lobbyists to read this letter. I strongly oppose the U.S. Federal Government setting precedent in support of a known and guilty monopolist. Please insist upon an Open Standard, arrived at by a broad spectrum of those with strong experience in the areas of Preservation of Individual Privacy and Integrity & Security of Data. Do not allow this perceived opportunity to lock the people of the United States of America into a closed standard which has proven non-secure in the past and the goals of the provider so transparent.
Regards, {Insert Your Name Here}
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Only after an educated voter base is established can these truly idiotic laws not get through.
What on EARTH makes you think you live in a direct democracy like that?
You don't.
You live in a democratic republic.
Want to know what that means?
You vote for the people WHO YOU WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR YOU. Then *THEY* make decisions FOR YOU.
At this point, other than prodding them and saying "Hey Over Here!", the voting public have ZERO control over the system, until the next election.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Gee, that sounds like the perfect way to punish someone who abuses their Monopoly power - give them a big contract!
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
OK, let's assume that we do want access to government services online. Taxation, benefits, voting even. I want that. That's going to require fairly robust identity validation. Note: fairly. Right now, it's absolutely trivial to scam the benefits system, or to steal someone else's vote if you really care enough to do it. An online solution only needs to be as good as the ones we've already got, which (let's face it) aren't that great.
Further, while I'm as cynical as the next guy (if the next guy is a bitter, twisted conspiracy freak), I really doubt if any company is going to be able to buy this contract without providing a genuine solution, and most importantly, a credible promise of long term support. Not the best solution, or the cheapest solution, but a reliable solution.
So, who does that leave? Oracle, most likely. Microsoft are actually the wild card outsiders. IBM, maybe. Sun at a stretch.
Can you think of anyone else? Note that we're not talking about a development house, we're talking about a solution provider with a track record (even if it's a criminal track record) and thousands of techies available to patch and nurse the system for years ahead.
If we want the online services (and I do), we're going to have to accept that it will be a big Dark Side company that's running them.
So I suggest that in this case you don't go off at half cock writing to your elected representatives (I use both words loosely) demanding that Microsoft not be given this contract. At least not unless you can suggest a credible alternative. Perhaps the most productive thing you can do is to try and sell her on championing legislation to ensure transparency and openness in the running of the system, and most importantly, ensure that it's universally accessible, that the information is actually held in confidence, and that it's not mandatory.
I'm tempted to suggest that it follow the pattern of recent bill and be called the "Enduring Patriotic Freedom of Just Federal Freenessness Bill", that would be reverting to cynical type. So I won't. ;-)
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If I recall correctly, laws cannect be passed to benefit only one person or company. (although there are ways around this by clever wording)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Goodbye America, It's been nice knowing you.
I cannot help drawing parrallels between this and the National Socialists, in German using IBM equipment used to manage the census, in the runup to the final solution during WW2.
The direction the US is moving is starting to get really scary from the outside.
Just when you think GW can't do anything more stupid...*sigh*. Anyone in favour of founding an independent state for geeks?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Do you oppose a national ID (which really isn't what this is)?
Do you oppose the govenment making private information, such as tax info available to people through the internet?
Do you oppose the use of a outside (non-government) authentication system?
Do you oppose an authentication system which doesn't have a proven track record of good security and prompt effective responses to security issues?
Do you oppose Microsoft being the provider of the system.
Or all of the above?
Try not to be overly vague in what you write to your Congressmen. They often have little grasp of technical issues, and likley get vague complaints about just about everything the government does. You don't want to confuse them with too much detail, but you need to tell them what you don't like, and why. Alternate solutions might even be helpful.