Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Seven Laws of Identity

Posted by Zonk on from the you-are-who-you-are dept.

pHatidic writes "Something strange is a brewin' at Microsoft these days. Check out this video interview with Kim Cameron, Microsoft's Architect of Identity, about Kim's Laws of Identity." From the post: "We have undertaken a project to develop a formal understanding of the dynamics causing digital identity systems to succeed or fail in various contexts, expressed as the Laws of Identity. Taken together, these laws define a unifying identity metasystem that can offer the Internet the identity layer it so obviously requires. They also provide a way for people new to the identity discussion to understand its central issues. This lets them actively join in, rather than everyone having to restart the whole discussion from scratch."

5 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. One step closer... by jmcmunn · · Score: 4, Interesting


    This just makes me feel like I am one step closer to the personalized advertising (think minority report?) where every site I visit is bombarding me personally (instead of anonymously) with ads for stuff I recently looked at or purchased.

    If I know who I am connected to, we're only a step away from advertisers and companies knowing who is connected to them.

    I don't see scams online being any worse than over the phone or anything else. I could get a call from some random person and see "out of area" on my caller id, and they could try to sell me some product, eventually acquiring my credit card number, or some other personal information. It's no less anonymous than online really, IMHO.

  2. Microsoft's Architect of Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What ever happed to being a good'ole programmer? Or if you really stuck with it, you'd be a senior programmer.

    All this architect shit is just a bunch of marketing crap that is foisted on folks in lieu of salary.

    I don't know about Microsoft, but at Bank of America, when the "architects" join the conference calls, that's my cue that it's about to get thick and smelly.

  3. Please. Stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ugh. What a pretentious pile of horse hockey. Here are the shills of Microsoft, attempting to co-opt your data once again, by creating pseudo-intellectual "Laws of Identity". What a laugh. Why don't they fix their stupid insecure OS instead? Because they can't. It's beyond fixable. So now they seek to redefine identity in the virtual space so they can claim the high road in secure transactions.

    Please. Stop. You are hurting people. You are the problem, and you should please cease and desist, and go away. I am fine with my identity, and the rights therof under the laws of my land. If you were actually LIABLE for your crappy software, then you wouldn't have the time to create this faux intellectual crap. Just because you lable it a law does not make it so....

  4. One more thing by pHatidic · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This was my original post. Zonk changed it to make it more anti-Microsoft:

    "Something strange is a brewin' at Microsoft these days. To see what I mean, check out this video interview with Kim Cameron, Microsoft's Architect of Identity, about Kim's now famous now famous Laws of Identity. Personally, I was so schocked to see Micrsoft come down this hard on the side of open standards and corporate responsibility that I almost choked on my tinfoil hat. Is this the beginning of a new Microsoft? But more importantly, now is the time to start an open and ongoing discussion about the future of digital identity. Is Kim's vision something the Slashdot community could get behind?"

  5. Re:No, but probably by kaens · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There would be advantages to having the ability to trace back all online activities to someone - you are correct in saying that spamming, virus distribution, etc could be reduced. The problem, of course, is the "suitable authorities" issue. If implemented, something like this would have a lot of chances for abuse.

    I honestly would not trust anybody with a position of political power to have the capability of tracking back everyone's online activities - there is too much of a chance that it would eventually get used for reducing more than just the harmful activities, it could get used for reducing the amount of people in the public that have dissenting opinons.

    Also, even if the capability could be introduced, it would be cracked/spoofed/worked around somehow eventually, unless there was some sort of way to prevent computers from communicating with each other in the ways that they currently do, and some sort of way to prevent people from creating their own networks.

    Subject to the devil in details, agreed. The thing is, who do you think would have control over what the details are? As it stands not you or I.

    --
    kaens.blogspot.com