Slashdot Mirror
The Seven Laws of Identity
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."
"We have undertaken a project to develop a formal understanding of the dynamics causing..."
Bingo!
It obviously requires an identity layer? News to me. As a card-carrying member of the tinfoil hat brigade, I prefer anonimity.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
We all know that the only 2 rules are going to be:
1. Any corporation can find out whatever they want to about you for whatever reason, and use that information for any purpose they see fit.
2. Rule number 1 also applies to city/state/federal governments
I wish I was joking, but I'm not.
Says who? How can something that is inanimate require anything? People create requirements. Maybe M$ needs the internet to have an identity layer, I say, tough noogies for them. I don't require the internet to have an "identity layer." And since I have spent this entire weekend in the "total proportion vortex," I know that my opinion is more important than M$'s.
Not Found Very apropriate..... heheheheh
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.
Browser report is 404 Not Found. Doh!
This is philosobabble bullshit. Most people at MSN couldn't even figure out how to integrate passport into the internal apps correctly (i.e. without trouble on the client side a lot of the time).
That's the problem. It was shit. Shit doesn't shine in any context. I'm still listening, but my impression so far is that of a pseudointellectual who needs a reality check.
You're entitled to your tinfoil-wrapped opinion, of course, but as I always point out in these discussions, there would be a lot of advantages to having some form of confirmed identity connected with Internet-based activity, even if it's generally concealed or only anonymously verifiable except to suitable authorities.
If everything could ultimately be tracked back to you eventually, things like spamming, virus distribution, defamation, on-line fraud, and numerous other harmful behaviours would be dramatically reduced. You could improve a lot of people's lives here.
Of course, you also have to identify "suitable authorities" who should get the right to access this information. That might be relatively easy in the West -- we have court systems that most people would probably trust to issue such orders if and when necessary -- but the Internet is international and what's free speech to you might be illegal anti-government propaganda in certain other places.
Personally, I think most of the supposed advantages of anonymity on the Internet are illusory anyway. Does anyone really believe that all these people in China are happily speaking freely on the Internet as it stands today anyway?
Hence, on balance, a reliable identity system gets my conditional agreement, subject to the devil in the details of course.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
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....
Having skimmed the article (the PDF works fine for all you 404 moaners...) it seems to make a lot of reasonable arguments. The title isn't entirely clear: we're basically talking about prerequisites for an effective identity framework to exist. In this respect, it's good to be up-front in acknowledging principles like the first law:
Any hint of subterfuge will immediately harm any information-based system's credibility, so we might as well start by ruling out the most serious form.
I also like the claim-based approach. A claim needn't be "I am John Doe of 16 Some Street, Someville." It can be much more general, e.g., "I am a member of Group X, and therefore entitled to access Service Y." I think this sort of framework is far more likely to gain user acceptance and trust, and with good reason. The author clearly realises this as well; the second law is:
All in all, given my stated views about complete anonymity on the Internet, this sort of research seems like useful progress, and a better compromise and basis for further research than much that I've seen before.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So really your feeling of your lack privacy loss comes from not having enough identity, and not the other way around.
As a card-carrying member of the tinfoil hat brigade, I prefer anonimity
Here are the seven principles, in abbreviated form [if anyone could make voodoo dolls of the creators of the PDF format, and stick pins in their - ah - whatevers, I'd be most grateful]:
I'm with you: Any WWW/Internet-ish global identity management system is gonna need a principle zero: With the understanding that the subsequent rules 1-7 apply only to those users who chose to forgo their principle zero rights."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?"
Passport failed because it was shit, and everyone knows it... so what to do when you're playing worlddomination on the Internet and have just failed? You send the whole thing to marketing, which relabels it and adds stuff about openness and how everyone can join in, and then you just keep on doing what you did before...
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
This isn't from Microsoft PR, it's from one of their research groups, who are generally very clever people looking at technologies that might be used some way into the future. This isn't the next MS Passport, or something they'll put as bullet point on Longhorn/Vista/whatever it's called today.
It's fascinating that the parent AC supports the law of their land, and wants Microsoft to be held liable for their "crappy software". At the same time, the parent AC obviously opposes these ideas, which might mean many people who abuse the Internet's anonymity to break those same laws could be held liable for their actions, or be denied the ability to perform those actions in the first place if they didn't wish to accept that liability. That position is logically inconsistent...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Given the fact that the TSA just got caught trying to continue TIA, I think that this is the last thing we need. It starts out very innocently. The industry adds something like this and pretty soon we have followup laws that begin to gradually force software to make full use of any sort of identity layer. Anonymity becomes nearly impossible, and for many countries that means that the Internet loses its alleged immunity to censorship.
One of the things that disturbs me about this sort of thing is that extreme rendition can work both ways. The Syrian government might want their back scratched for a change and Uncle Sam then turns over a few names held on US soil using USA PATRIOT Act powers to secret get the information. If our government is willing to ship people to get tortured, what makes anyone think that it's not immoral enough to scratch another, more abusive government's back a little by helping them clamp down on dissent?
Biometric information tied to your credit card would go a very long way toward solving many of these crimes. What we need are open standards for communicating and storing biometrics information. I should be able to look into a webcam with a retina scanner and it should be able to tell Amazon.com that I'm the person who owns the credit card being used. The problem with this system is that it'll end up making something like TIA more realistic because it'll be accompanied by laws that force software developers to make good use of it.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
You are nobody...
(unless you are in my phonebook)
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
For those having a hard time getting to the PDF, here are the 7 Rules of Identity according to Kim. I've removed the text for brevity. 1. User Control and Consent: Technical identity systems must only reveal information identifying a user with the user's consent. 2. Minimal Disclosure for a Constrained Use: The solution which discloses the least amount of identifying information and best limits its use is the most stable long term solution. 3. Justifiable Parties: Digital identity systems must be designed so the disclosure of identifying information is limited to parties having a necessary and justifiable place in a given identity relationship. 4. Directed Identity: A universal identity system must support both "omni-directional" identifiers for use by public entities and "unidirectional" identifiers for use by private entities, thus facilitating discovery while preventing unnecessary release of correlation handles. 5. Pluralism of Operators and Technologies: A universal identity system must channel and enable the inter-working of multiple identity technologies run by multiple identity providers. 6. Human Integration: The universal identity metasystem must define the human user to be a component of the distributed system integrated through unambiguous human-machine communication mechanisms offering protection against identity attacks. 7. Consistent Experience Across Contexts: The unifying identity metasystem must guarantee its users a simple, consistent experience while enabling separation of contexts through multiple operators and technologies. -------- I'm really shocked that someone who works at Microsoft came up with this. This is a constructive, interesting set of ideas. The PDF link is : http://www.identityblog.com/stories/2005/05/13/The LawsOfIdentity.pdf
If you want to hide your identity online, just use Tor
When I see things like: We need a unifying identity metasystem that can protect applications from the internal complexities of specific implementations and allow digital identity to become loosely coupled. This metasystem is in effect a system of systems that exposes a unified interface much like a device driver or network socket does.
I think, "why is it a metasystem?"
Isn't it just a "system"? If I compose some systems, I just have a bigger system, right? I thought a "metasystem" was something different -- e.g. a system of rules for analyzing or processing systems (like a metaprogram -- a program that processes programs).
When I see people using words like "metasystem", but without using some sort of formal definitions or formal notation (aka "math"), I get a bit nervous, because it starts to sound like a bunch of marketroid speak. Then I figure it is a pile of shit, being built by a bunch of shitheads (who want to sound important by using fancy made up words), and I don't pay any attention.
And maybe a few years later I read about its total failure.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
It sounds like Microsoft has learned about ontologies, you know those things that we're going to use to build the semantic web. Now they're trying to build an identity ontology to allow software agents to act on your behalf. I'd prefer to see something based on authorization rather than identification but MS doesn't work along those lines. I looked at the 'Laws of Identity' page and the blog it's sourced from, but didn't watch the vid... so consume this comment with some skepticism.
What is so hard about this? I sign this email, you know it's from me. I sign X-Random piece of data, you know it's from me. You send me a challenge, I sign it, and you know I'm on the other end.
There are nice email frontends for PGP, and the web of trust makes damn good sense. It's flexible, and it makes sure that nobody's got you by the balls.
This sounds like MS trying to reinvent something that's already working just fine, and making it horribly complicated and broken.
Rule #1: MS Passport is the only choice for identity management.
--
make install -not war
Based on the Report, the *only* contribution Kim has succeeded in delineating are the assumptions behind Corporate suscription based frameworks.
There is nothing here that provides any layer of protection for the construction of an online identity. None of this contributes to the level of identity assurance to enable voting online.
I've worked with Novell's Identity Manager and DirXML for several years now, as well as their eDirectory and several other directories. They have a lot of good back-end identity technology that's tried and true. The product set is aimed at corporate customers, but the technology is in place and probably viable for much larger-scale implementations. With the next eDirectory release, you can have two trees and IDM drivers on the same server, so you can sync trees without ever hitting the network. Am I the only one that thinks Novell should be preparing to compete in the same space? Or is it not the back-end technology at issue but the human interface? Novell, are you paying attention here?
Tor for all you tinfoil hat types. M$ will never get through that.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
"...the identity layer it so obviously requires."
I could have sworn it said "the idenitiy lawyer it so obviously requires."
Sounds about right.
The Eighth Law is that people have a right to know their own keys.
I want my key!
NO KEY, NO SALE!
If a computer comes with a boobytrapped self destructing chip that forbids you to know your own key and keeps secrets from you and restricts your ability to control your own computer then refuse to accept it.
The "seven laws of identity" are just a public relations gimmic to help sell the well documented Trusted Computing system. Microsoft's own website documents that the Security Support Component of their upcoming operating system release *is* the Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Platform Module, and the Trusted Computing Group's technical specifications cover the identity system in detail. I have read this documentation, hundreds of pages of technical specifications.
Step one is that the system only works if you have an approved and compliant TPM chip. The TPM chip contains a secret key that you are forbidden to know, and the chip is boobytrapped to nuke itself if you attempt to read out your key or alter the system. Step two is that the chip can then cryptocgraphically identify itself to other computers over the internet. Step three is that the chip can then tell other people exactly what software you are running, and that the system only works if you are running compliant and approved software. Step four is that people can then send encrypted data and keys to your chip, and you are prohibited from reading or altering the data or keys sent to you. The chip keeps the keys and data secret and secure against the owner. The chip can then send messages and attest to your "identity" and that it has control over the system and that you cannot do anything they do not want you to be able to do. That you cannot lie about your identity or your "capabilities" to read or alter your own data. Note that this is a really bizzare use of the word "capabilities". This is that you and your computer have the "capability" to deny you the ability to read or alter your own data.
If you try to run unapproved software, or if you attempt to alter your software or data in any way, then the chip denies you access to read or modify your own files, and the chip reveals in internet communications that you have an invalid identity and that the internet communication can be refused.
If we include the Eighth Law, that people have a right to know their own keys, then everything is fine and dandy. If you are allowed to know your own keys then your computer can keep no secrets against you and truely own and control your computer. So long as you are allowed to know your own key you cannot be locked in or locked out. So long as they refuse the Eighth Law, so long as this is just a front for Trusted Computing, then this is to be rejected in the strongest terms possible.
I want my key!
NO KEY, NO SALE!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Two other posters prefer 1) an authorization rather than identification based approach, and 2) maintenance of walls between i.e. their bank and their doctor. Well credit card and insurance companies make this a bit messy but I digress.
It seems to me both posters are completely correct in capturing the general attitudes everyday people have about this sort of thing, or would have if it was translated into a verbal explanation of what somebody was offering to do for you ("I'll make it so you can just check a box and your bank and doctor will be able to talk to each other").
My first analysis of the rules was that it boiled down to an essential conflict between "Do as little evil as possible" and "We must do some evil".
This tension is artificial and derives from the author's treatment of an assertion (that globally verifiable identity between meatspace and cyberspace is necessary) as equivalent to a philosophical or religious law, or at least a position of unanimous agreement. This position is not only false, but also makes the author suspect of ulterior motives considering his employer, notwithstanding the list of authors provided (which is what kept me reading to a point).
However if one wishes to create a viable business system on the net that reflects the (putative) sovereign status of a human being over his or her own person, the architecture should work differently.
In particular, open standards, one-way only authorization hashes, and user-initiated transactions rather than corporate-initiated transactions, would seem to be more appropriate.
As an example consider that one's social security number is both very insecure and very important to an individual. Same for a credit card number. Having a database which obviously links an individual's real world identity to such a number, and making the database available through an imperfect system to a virtually unlimited number of agents with their own motives, means that as time goes on the probability of one's identity being publically divulged approaches 1.
On the other hand, if you personally create a data structure (say an xml file) using an open standard (say for insurance claims) and encrypt it in such a way that part is only readable by one person on a given insurance company's staff, and further encrypt it so that only your doctor and yourself can see the other bits, well that sounds like an authorization based approach and I would have far less to worry about that. It would certainly make the FBI's job a bit harder but they can always get a court order to make the insurance agent and doctor talk, if it's that important.
My point is that the author's strategy is fatally contaminated by his employment by Microsoft. There are other logical constructs one could make to guide system development, for example one could try to make the net more anonymous and more user-centric, and place stronger legal liability on the corporate entities that use, store and transmit the data. Individuals are empowered to use the system as a homeowner uses his telephone and the circuit created for a call.
It is not necessary to do evil at all. The only people who think so are those who have been trained to see people as objects instead of seeing them as the kings of inviolate kingdoms whom the system must serve with sincerity and humility.
The paper makes some good points but I submit that the general agreement that identity is needed online which the author suggests exists, does not in fact exist. People need to be able to trust companies they buy things from, and assurance that they are not "fly by night" operations, i.e. that you can call the better business bureau or the police on them, is what makes commerce possible. That, or just paying cash. I think the author needs to get back to the concrete reality of just how our economy currently works, so long as he is getting around to making suggestions about underlying infrastructure, and think about whether or not people really want this kind of thing.