Slashdot Mirror
IBM to Open Source Novel Identity Protection Software
coondoggie handed us a link to a Network World article reporting that IBM plans to open source the project 'Identity Mixer'. Developed by a Zurich-based research lab for the company, Identity Mixer is a novel approach to protecting user identities online. The project, which is a piece of XML-based software, uses a type of digital certificate to control who has access to identity information in a web browser. IBM is enthusiastic about widespread adoption of this technology, and so plans to open source the project through the Eclipse Open Source Foundation. The company hopes this tactic will see the software's use in commercial, medical, and governmental settings.
Developed by a Zurich-based research lab for the company, Identity Mixer is a novel approach to protecting user identities online.
which novel? I hope not 1984.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Anyone else read that as Novell Identity Protection Software and thought WTF? It is definitely beer-thirty.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Me. I already tagged it as: notnovell
Anyone remember maybe a year or two ago when IBM was doing something with rather intrusive software to mine data on people?
It seems IBM doesn't really have a clear policy on whether to be Good or Evil. They seem to try doing both at the same time...
Guess we need to label IBM as Chaotic Neutral...
All rites reversed 2010
what, you mean people don't like ms passport?
I mean what's new in this compared to current LiveJournal's OpenID ?
@neonux
How is this different from things that have been tried in the past? Furthermore, how is this different from the various other situations we hear about occurring at financial institutions and the like, where a database is inadvertently printed or placed outside a firewall (or whatever)?
What makes this better than me simply typing my credit card number into the secure web site of an online store (or have I missed the intended purpose)?
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
1984 or not, identity mixer is already disturbing enough as an idea. It suggests it helps to mix identities!
Mixing identities? Nature already provides that functionality. This being slashdot, I'm sure many people may be unaware of that.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
IBM's been like that for a long time. Remember when the PC division refused to sell the company's own operating system? (Of course, the PC division ended up being sold to a Chinese company, so I guess the OS/2 developers got the last laugh, but a bit too little too late.)
Big, diverse companies often seem to be going in several directions at once, and in this industry, pretty much nobody is bigger or more diverse than IBM (still).
Thank God! Seriously, whoever thought that doing web security within HTML forms was a good idea really needs to be taken to the shed.
Yeah, 'cause clearly, nothing is more secure than a closed source solution. Security by obscurity is the ONLY ANSWER! And advice on computer security by random slashdot posters is far more trustworthy than anything from a company that's been making secure systems for longer than most of us have been alive.
You don't open source something. You open-source something.
Thus any literate speaker of English reading the headline would be left guessing what "novel identity" is. Or without the word "novel", obviously IBM is unveiling software to protect the identity of source code, for example allowing companies to selectively use FLOSS code without fearing that it might make its way into closed software projects.
ie "IBM to release software to protect source identity."
That is all.
Can someone find a link that describes what this actually does?
The writeup and the article both sucked.
Am I the only one who read the title and thought Novell instead of novel?
can be found here.
Today if you want to conduct virtually any kind of commerce over the Net, you have to provide a whole dossier of information about yourself. Whether this information is technically necessary or not is irrelevant -- if virtually all companies demand it, then individuals will have to provide it.
So here's some technology that allows you to anonymize your data or just not send it in the first place; what is the incentive for businesses to adopt this technology (at great cost to them)? Perhaps in Europe it will be mandated by law but I don't have any hope here in the USA.
idemix which is the software in question appears to be covered by a number of patent applications submitted by the inventor, Jan Camenisch. What's the point in open-sourcing it if IBM has half a dozen or more patents covering the technology being used? Or will this process grant use of any IBM-owned patents necessary to run the code? And if so, what happens as people start modifying the code; how far can they go and still be indemnified against IBM patent infringement?
Patents and open source don't mix well. I don't see how this is going to work.
yes of course if you know International Business Machines the you realize that they in their inventory (of past products) have servers that have been proven By Actual Troops
to be bullet proof (with actual bullets!!)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
International Business Machines the you realize that they in their inventory (of past products) have servers that have been proven By Actual Troops
to be bullet proof (with actual bullets!!)
I don't know about that. But HP has some systems that are bullet proof, with actual videos of the shooting.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I've always been impressed with HP's engineering in their UNIX line of servers (can't speak to the PC based ones). I had a server (actually a B class workstation functioning as a server) several years ago that was knocked off a table onto the floor by the cleaning staff. Even after a 3 foot tumble, it never missed a beat. Never even rebooted. The only evidence was a little scuffing on the case. Nice stuff.
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
The idea was that you would have settings in your browser to indicate what personal information you would reveal before connecting to a web site. However, it was supposed to be negotiable. The web site would specify what personal information you would have to reveal before you could connect. The reality is that if P3P ever took hold, all web sites would demand enough to identify you at a minimum. Enough people would blindly follow directions and release the information. Those of us vigilant of our privacy would have to configure our browsers to do the same or be out of touch with 90% of the world.
This sounds similar in concept if not execution to CardSpace (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa6 63320.aspx/).
Any thoughts on this?
The project, which is a piece of XML-based software, uses a type of digital certificate to control who has access to identity information in a web browser.
Well now, that certainly seems like a complicated way to deny all cookies, disable the browser cache, block most "web bug" images, and have FireFox's "Clear Private Data" tool set to purge everything on closing the browser.
All these companies trying to make it "easier" for me to share my info with those who I "trust" have completely missed the point - I don't trust any of them!
I fill out every forced (yeah, not really "forced", in that I have a choice of not getting that content - Let's not play naive here) registration form with completely bogus personal info[1]. If it needs a "real" email address to send some sort of login info or an annoying "you must respond to this to activate your account" message, I make a one-off email address, get the message, and delete the address. Even most "real-world" companies with whom I do business don't have my real contact info - If I want to talk to them, I'll call; I don't really care if they want to talk to me.
We need to take back our privacy. Letting companies even pretend they have the right to talk to us without our initiating the conversation, goes too far. Tools like the one described show that not only do they think they can talk to us, but that we might even want to share our info with them.
1) You need to explain this concept to your non-geek friends and relatives. It absolutely shocks most people when I tell them that "Yes Virginia, you can lie" when a website asks for your name or email address.