Digital ID World Conference

Denver is playing host to the Digital ID World conference, which is intended to discuss and examine the future of "digital identity" - how you'll be identified, tracked, and monitored online. Several people from the weblog community are in attendance and have reports available: Denise Howell, David Weinberger, Doc Searls.

Comments

If this is the future...

[ites]

Then it sucks.
Being observed without the chance to watch back
is one of the worst things I can imagine.
At least when we lived in villages, and everyone
knew everything about everyone else,
things balanced out.
But this vision of tracking humanity like so many pigeons
is distasteful in the extreme.
Nonetheless, it will happen sooner or later.
Hopefully after I kick the bucket.

Re:If this is the future...

[russellh]

Yeah, it sucks. But it's also impossible in the long run because we know all about complexity and software and systems and we know they don't last. They break down. Anything man-made of even moderate complexity has a short lifespan. Anyone who has been involved in a large project knows it's ugly behind the curtain. Always bugs, always loopholes, always brittle, and in the end - run by regular people who are more worried about picking their kid up from school on time than anything else, etc. etc.

I'm not worried for the long term, I'm worried about how the system will collapse. Privacy catastrophe. It always takes a big disaster to change people's minds. That's what really sucks, in my mind.

Anonymity on the Internet

[gpinzone]

...how you'll be identified, tracked, and monitored online.

The post by Michael doesn't necessarily imply that Digital IDs are good or bad. However, most discussions here on Slashdot tend to demonize Digital IDs as an invasion of privacy. Consumers want Digital IDs so they can be securely identified when making purchases or logging into a computer network over the unsecured Internet. Do not confuse the issue of anonymity with identification schemes. The Internet currently has no such IDs or strict authentication, yet law enforcement can still track down perpetrators of illegal activity.

What we want is the option of being completely secure or completely anonymous. Neither task is a simple one.

Re:Anonymity on the Internet

[neurostar]

What we want is the option of being completely secure or completely anonymous. Neither task is a simple one.

This is very true. Neither of them will be easy to attain. However, given the choice between the two, I would pick anonymity. I think that out of the two, it would be easier to remain anonymous than to have total security. Total security, for all practical purposes, is impossible. It is impossible to ensure that all the people who are watching us are doing the best job with the best intentions. The 'human factor' must be considered.

Even if we do get a great amount of security at the cost of our anonymity, it the 'security' would most likely end up being worse than if everyone was anonymous or even worse than it is now. This flaw in security would result from the fact that someone who wanted to commit some crime, would find it easier to collect a large amount of information about a large number of people. The huge databases required on the path to 'total security' would facillitate this possibility.

However, with anonymity comes separation. If we remain mostly anonymous, it is harder for criminals to get information on us. Law enforcement would still be able to protect us, as stated in the comment by gpinzone, because they don't need to know anything about me, for example, to catch a criminal that stole my car or something.

As an example from my personal life, I try and buy most of the things I get using cash. This is because of the simple fact that cash is anonymous. People can find out that I withdrew $40 from my bank account. But they can't find out what I spent the money on. That means I have the freedom to buy what I want without worrying about someone databasing what I buy. The database of things I buy could be used for something that is only annoying, like targeted advertising, or for something else, like planning a robbery.

To sumarize, I feel we should strive for anonymity because it is safer and it doesn't compromise the ability of Law Enforcement to deal with criminals.

neurostar

Re:Anonymity on the Internet

[buswolley]

Credit cards are one of the most insecure methods for transactions. Think about it. The only security you have on you credit card is the credit card number.

as soon as you make one online, over the phone etc purchase. Your number will be on a paper somewhere..Or the waitress/waiter copies the numbers down while settling your bill.

.Security Ha?

Its fucked

The real problem

[0ddity]

is the fact that something like this is needed in the first place. An international id is not going to be a fix for the lack of security we have in the world today. The only true solution is for people to start being honest. This system will be abused just like any other no matter how secure they try to make it.

My humble opinion.

[halftrack]

IMHO privacy and online identification is where it should be. The ISP's logs the connection between IPs and users (which they are unwilling to give away) and there is a fair level of audit where only IPs are logged.

When it comes to privacy it is right where I wan't it, in my own hands. If I give out too much information it's my own fault. What is important is to educate the wast majority of Joes and Janes how to separate the trustworthy from the untrustworthy, when your name is A. Nonymus and where to put your spam-reciever-e-mail address.

Of course IP logs can be cracked or sold (very rare) by dishonest ISPs, but then again taking a crack on a larger (be privat or government run) database with private information would probably (for those who enjoy such foolishnes') be more fun and profitable. And when it comes to my father, mother, brother and sisters someone ought to teach them where it is okay to give up their private information and which services never to trust.

three cheers for cash!

[Frymaster]

not only is cash anonymous for you the purchaser, it also puts no status restrictions on the seller.

to accept creditcards or interac (i assume you have that in the states as well) the seller must:

1. have legitimacy in the eyes of the state
2. hav sufficient money to obtain approval form banks, the state &c.
3. submit to scrutiny by the banks/state

meeting these requirement excludes a large portion of society (usually the poorest and wekest part) from fulfilling the "seller" role. can you accept credit cards?

while cash is good for the buyer (anonymous, fast &c.) it's impact on the seller is far more significant - not just in maintaining their anonymity but even just allowing them to fill the role of seller at all.