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

Re:Pictures of contributors

[jzs9783]

I dunno...think about all the /. contributors - do you really WANT to see them in every post??

hate to reference 1984, but...

[dildatron]

I hate to reference 1984, but it seems like the whole identity tracking thing sparks a lot of fear in a lot of people. It's not so much that we are all doing bad things and just don't want to be tracked, it's that the potential for abuse is high.

And it's not just on computers, by any means. More and more I have noticed cameras on nearly every stop light, cameras in every parking lot, etc. I know what their intended purpose, but they can potentially be abused.

I think most of us are pro-privacy, and I will sacrifice a bit of safety for personal freedoms. I just know how bad people abuse good things all too well.

Re:hate to reference 1984, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

The chest. They installed it in the chest. Let's face it, you can loose arms and legs and live. It's a lot harder to survive without having a chest.

From what I hear, they attach the device within the ribcage, too, so it's even harder to damage and/or remove.

Damned aliens. I so long for the days when they'd just anal probe a few people out west, and have the occasional barbecue out in some farmer's fields.

Re:hate to reference 1984, but...

[dildatron]

No, they really are cameras. I am aware of what you are talking about, but where I am there are cameras in addition to the light-changing devices. It's for the transportation department somehow or another... but they are cameras.

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.

Re:If this is the future...

[nanojath]

Oh you're exaggerating. You only have to be identified by the one number, six hundred three score and six, and you have the option of receiving the character on either your forehead or your hand!

No need for parental supervision ...

[mustangdavis]

I guess this devise would prevent guys from telling their date's parents that they are going to "the movies" ....

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

Re:Anonymity on the Internet

[RobotRunAmok]

That was a great little piece of Performance Art! ...do you take Visa?

Re:Anonymity on the Internet

[wishus]

Add to the list that a lot of credit card machines actually print your number and expiration date on the recipt. People are very careless with their recipts. I know some who always leave the "customer copy" behind at restaurants, leaving the waitstaff/busstaff a nice printed card number that no one will miss and doesn't need to be snuck off, copied, and returned.

Wal-Mart used to (and may still, I donno) print card numbers on recipts, and people are very careless with their Wal-Mart recipts. A guy could walk around the Wal-Mart parking lot picking up recipts and get quite a few card numbers fairly quickly.

I try to keep my recipts and shred them when I get home. If I'm travelling, I fold the recipt so that the crease goes straight through the card number. Then I tear along the fold, tear up the remaining pieces, and throw them away.

Of course, it would still be trivial for some malicious salesperson to get my number, but at least I'm not leaving printed copies around where ever I go.

The future of Instant Messaging

[conduit4]

1100101100110: I'm grounded because my mom caught me surfing around some porn sites from her trip to Hawaii 1010110100111: LOL 1010110100111:Well, yesterday I was using my P2P program and so far today 10 record company execs have come to my house to make sure I didnt have and illegal music they owned on my computer. 1100101100110: Rough 1100101100110: the same thing happened to 0011001001100 last week.

Re:The future of Instant Messaging

[sporty]

It's icq UIN's! And I know that guy!

monitored online?

[User 956]

how you'll be identified, tracked, and monitored online. Several people from the weblog community

Isn't having a weblog a way to be identified, tracked, and monitored online? Seriously, most of them consist of inane crap like "At 2:14 I ate a cheese sandwitch and watched Buffy reruns", and "I live in my parents' basement".

This has been planned forever

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

The digital identity that will finally make it is an 18-digit code, split into three parts of 6 digits, embedded in a chip in the forehead or the right hand!

Beware, the end times are near!

More information can be found here:

http://www.bible-prophecy.com/mark.htm

We need two things....

[TerryAtWork]

1 - A way to absolutely prove who we are in order to buy stuff safely.

2 - A way to absolutely hide who we are in order to score all that pr0n off the net safely....

Interac?

[CodeTRap]

Your rights online. HAH! What about your rights offline?

What I want to know is this. How much of my spending habits, (what I eat, drink, sleep on, sleep in, sleep with, all that information) how much of it does a company like Interac have? Or Visa, or MasterCard. When you make your puchases using that little pinpad, or any other form of electronic payment.. How much of that information is stored, analyzed, saved, used?

You're all afraid of losing the ability to download free mp3's.. or surfing porn anonymously.. but. What about being able to buy groceries without big bro knowing what you eat? Or what movies you watch. Or where you were? How much of that electronic trail can be used to trace your movements? Who has the right to that information? What are they going to use it for?

Do you think that your day cannot be traced by the purchases you make? Where you work? Traced with camera's throughout the city... I wonder who's made a game of watching you, just for practice.....

Re:Interac?

[KavitaDrake]

It's not hard to envision the next step of purchase monitoring--you routinely buy too much junk food (the lifestuff of computer geeks) at the grocery store, and your health insurance rates go up because of your risk for obesity. Does anyone really think those little supermarket 'savings' cards are for your benefit?

Re:Interac?

[Frymaster]

how much of it does a company like Interac have?

read your bank statement! mine (cibc) says great things like this:

mac's milk address-of-store time $39.81

so... they have a lot. micro purchases on interac can retrace yr location over the course of a day, month, year whatever.

... and yes, i actually spent $40 at macs. depressing, isn't it.

Re:Interac?

[Winterblink]

Not hard to blow $40 at Mac's. I think a pack of Nerds there is like 4 bucks.

Who's got their fingers in the ....

[jo.cool]

The site www.digitalidworld.com wants to set a cookie. Do you want to allow it?
Not me!

Then who?

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.

From an statistical perspective

[rhodesbe]

The way I see it: Assuming all bank accounts, ID's and records are referenced against a chip in the skin or ID no.: No system ever achieves 100% accuracy. In many industries, an acceptable accuracy is defined as anything within 6 sigmas of deviation. This translates into roughly 2 "mistakes" per million parts, or cycles, whatever. That being said, there are approx. 6 billion people in the world. If whoever administrates such a DB (a scary thought in itself) accepts "6 sigma" quality, then this means up to 12,000 people get screwed at any one time, because every transaction is subject to variation. The jist of what I am saying is that I don't want my child denied medical access because of normal, UNAVOIDABLE variation. In short, "Keep It Simple, Stupid". Sometimes analog is better.

Re:warning: biting

[nanojath]

theist: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

atheists are incapable of recognizing ethical conduct and moral opinion since their "moral" code is little more than threat-avoidance/reward-driven behaviour (as their understanding of human conduct recognizes only evolutionary forces i.e. survival- and reproduction- inspired behavior).

Although I fall into the very, very, very broad category of "theist" I don't actuall believe the statement immediately above. But you will find plenty of "theists" who will, in fact, assert that anyone who does not believe in a God or gods can only be a moral relativist. Why do they assert this? Because they are are judgemental dumbasses. And so are you.

Privacy? A thing of the past.

[RgnadKzin]

In order to have something approximating complete privacy, one must be outside the realm of tracking databases. What is the key element within the United States that is used for this purpose? The SSN.

Fortunately (or not, as the case may be), only aliens applying for permanent residency are required to get an SSN; reference 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). Otherwise, one must apply for an SSN in order to obtain or retain benefits payable in federal funds; reference 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). If one is a citizen, and require no federal funds, then one is not required to make application.

One thereby is denied, in many states, the benefice of driver's licenses (can't get one here in Pennsylvania). Funny, the statutes say that within 30 days, one must apply for a D/L. I did, and was refused. Evidently, a "resident" is a person who has an SSN. Check Vattel's Law of Nations to see that Citizens and Residents are two very different people.

Credit cards? Not a problem, I have several. I only use a particular one for online purchases, and the other is earmarked for emergency purchases. Haven't had to use that one in quite a while. Always pay off the former each month.

I guess I am tracked to a certain extent by this, but what do they use to co-ordinate the information with other databases? The SSN? Sorry, ain't got no.

Medical databases, ditto. In order to get life insurance, I had to get a complete physical and submit that, because I am not found in their medical databases.

Bank accounts? I have several. There is only a requirement for an SSN if they are going to report interest paid. I do not have any interest bearing accounts.

I do not make deposits (except the initial one, against which I cash checks), I do not make withdrawls (ever, as I retain these accounts as I move). I guess they could track the checks that are cashed against the account, but at which account? At which bank? How are they going to co-ordinate the information? No SSN.

Credit report? Don't need one. I don't apply for credit. I take the offers they send in the mail and return them with "Citizen - NONE" in the SSN space, and they must give me a card, after all, I am pre-approved.

If they do not, it is religious discrimination.

You see, if I am not required to have an SSN by any federal law, and if they were to impose a restriction upon me because I have no SSN, then the SSN must be (at least the precursor) to the mark of the beast. Revelation says "in the right hand" as though showing ID, and "in the forehead" as though reciting from memory. The language does not connote a tatoo or something like that.

With regard to the privacy that one will not be afforded in the future, I can only say: There has to be a way.

Let's take cameras everywhere. If they are private cameras and there is notice that you are being recorded, then you organize a boycott. If they are public cameras, then you have to be able to show that they are taking your property for public use, and thereby must compensate you. The only question is how to substantiate that which they are taking and what use is being made.

I'll let you know when I have that figured out.

Re:warning: biting

[Frymaster]

atheists... understanding of human conduct recognizes only evolutionary forces i.e. survival- and reproduction- inspired behavior.

so, any human activity other than fighting, eating or reproducing requires a belief in god? the implications are astounding.

Because they are are judgemental dumbasses. And so are you.

where's the judgement? if one performs a deed of good or evil while under duress we do not say that individual is acting out of anything other than self-interest. a donation made to a charity at gunpoint is not a "good" act. it's a self-preserving act.

the sanctions that accompany the belief in any morality-dictating supernatural force (viz. god) is nothing more than duress or bribery motivating various activities.

i fail to see what you find judgemental about that statement.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

[B.D.Mills]

The Romans had a good saying here - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I cannot trust someone I cannot see or don't know guarding my personal information. Chances are they will sell it to all willing to pay, including those whom I would prefer not to have it. Many ISP's already do this, and they will keep on doing it.

So who's keeping an eye on these silent watchers? Nobody. And this is wrong.

Re:warning: biting

[nanojath]

where's the judgement?

The judgement, you humorless fuck, is in this:

so, any human activity other than fighting, eating or reproducing requires a belief in god? the implications are astounding.

What you basically do here is take my assertion - which is a nakedly obvious parody of your original assertion about theists - and act as if I mean it literally... even though I plainly state in the very next paragraph that "I don't actually believe the statement immediately above."

But you ignored that. You ignore the fact that my statement "they are are judgemental dumbasses" refers to the kind of theist who would, if I may again quote myself, "assert that anyone who does not believe in a God or gods can only be a moral relativist."

To put it another way, and hopefully improve the chances of my point penetrating your terminally softened brain, I am saying - follow along now - that THEISTS - that's people who believe in a God or gods - who would make the assertion that "atheists are incapable of recognizing ethical conduct and moral opinion since their "moral" code is little more than threat-avoidance/reward-driven behaviour" - are "judgemental dumbasses." The reason I believe this is because it would be a ridiculous and gross simplification of the universe of thought that comprises atheist and agnostic belief systems.

You totally missed what I was saying, in fact you turned my statements completely upside down, reversing their meanings, because you DIDN'T LISTEN. You didn't read or try to understand what I was saying. Because YOU already knew what I thought, because I had identified myself as a "theist," thus placing myself in the company of other intellectual lightweights like George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King Jr., Blaise Pascal, Sir Isaac Newton, Leo Tolstoy, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Dag Hammarskjold, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Aquines, Dante Alighieri, Geoffrey Chaucer, Albrecht Duerer, William Shakespeare, John Donne, John Milton, Samuel Johnson, J.S. Bach, George Handel, Albert Schweitzer, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Michael Faraday, Lord William Kelvin, John Adams, Pattrick Henry, and Desiderius Erasmus. And a host of other idiots like that. Theists, jeesh, wotta bunch of losers.

What do you call a person who judges a person based on assumptions about their belief system rather than what they actually say?

You call that person a judgemental asshole.

You, sir, are a judgmental asshole.

the sanctions that accompany the belief in any morality-dictating supernatural force (viz. god) is nothing more than duress or bribery motivating various activities.

i fail to see what you find judgemental about that statement.

Here is what I find judgemental about that statement, and I will cut it up into teeny tiny pieces on your plate so you stand a chance of getting it through your clenched-closed little mind. What is judgemental about that statement is that you take the billions of people who believe, in some capacity, in God or gods, and decide that you can, in one pithy statement, summarize ALL of our beliefs. We're all just running away from the punishment of hell or striving after the reward of heaven. To demonstrate what a ridiculous generalization this statement was, I restated it with a slight twist, making the gross generalization that without God, there was only evolution to believe in as the guiding force for human behavior, and therefor all behavior of atheists was guided by reproductive or survival instincts. Now, I'm really worried that you're going to get this wrong, so I want to make this totally clear: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. I know, because I have an open mind and LISTEN to what people say, that there is a whole galaxy of ways to believe in the universe that do not involve the belief in a god. I do not consider these beliefs automatically invalid because they happen to differ in some respects from my own. I do not make gross, sweeping assumptions about their attendant beliefs based on only one factor of their beliefs (whether or not they believe in gods). Only a judgemental asshole would do that.

Like you.

Get it now? It is not your CONCLUSION I am dismissing as judgemental - it is your PREMISE. People like you are intellectually identical to the worst sort of bible-thumping, hellfire-n-damnation spewing fundamentalist: you're incapable of seeing past your own narrow beliefs.