The Government Internet ID Proposal

An anonymous reader writes "Is it the beginning of government tracking? An expert on electronic privacy walks through the possibilities and perils of a national online security system run, in part, by the US Department of Homeland Security."

Comments

Between this and Apple's location tracking...

[Itesh]

we should have absolutely nothing to fear. Remember, this is all for our protection.

Re:Between this and Apple's location tracking...

[piripiri]

Thank god I don't live in the USA.

How will this prevent identity theft?

[mschaffer]

How will this prevent identity theft? Seems to me that it will make it potentially easier to steal someone's identity.

The government can't do anything right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like this story when people insinuate that the government is an utter failure at anything it touches. Stolen from Usenet long ago, I believe.

This morning I awoke to my alarm powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Dept. of Energy. I turn on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration predicts the weather to be using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration. I also note that the US is still a sovereign nation, having not been invaded during the night, thanks to the tireless vigilance of the United States Armed Forces.

I then took a shower using clean water provided by the municipal water utility. At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation.

I may also stop to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the local and state building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local Police Department.

Some days we stop to let the kids play in one of the many beautiful parks maintained by the US National Park Service division of the US Department of the Interior.

I then log onto the internet, developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, and post on freerepublic and FOX News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine [or new ID cards] is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Re:The government can't do anything right?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I love telling people who post this story:

1) Just because the government provides those services does not mean they wouldn't exist without the government. If the state provided all food, does that mean that the absence of the state would result in the absence of food? Presumably many people want nice parks, clean water, safe cars, and so on. When people want things, it generates something called "demand" in the economy. Latent demand for a product which doesn't yet exist is the single biggest driver of entrepreneurial innovation and investment. This is how we get, among other things: cars, computers, food, planes, trains, medicine, robots, furniture, music, tools,... Imagine, all those things created simply by some people wanting them, and other people making them and selling... all voluntarily. Who'd a thunk it!

2) It completely ignores the fact that these services were created on stolen wealth (taxation). But alas this is a point that will definitely go over your head since you undoubtedly believe that the state's claim to my income is just.

3) It completely ignores that all state programs force everyone to receive the same service, even if they don't want that service at all, or would rather have a different one. For example if the state were the only producer of food, and it made everyone eat bread and potatoes for breakfast lunch and dinner, you would say, "See, the state can do things right." Nevermind that some people preferred steak, some people wanted to eat more, some wanted to eat less, some wanted to cook their own food, etc.

I could go on, but I'll stop there since I'd imagine your statist eyes are popping out of your head right now at all of this "Fox News Nonsense".

It seems most statists really have only a few arguments, each of which is can be rapidly debunked:

* If you don't like it, leave!
* The world is a safe place to live because of our wise regulatory overlords. (People can't be trusted to decide on their own what might harm them, but those same people can be trusted to regulate millions of other people using the threat of force.)
* Taxation isn't theft because of the social contract. (A contract I have never signed, never seen, and never agreed to.)
* People involved in free, voluntary transactions are exploiting one another [capitalism]. People threatening each other with violence if they don't comply are doing good [statism]. That last one always is the funniest for me.

Re:The government can't do anything right?

[element-o.p.]

In response, I say...

"TSA"

QED.

Re:The government can't do anything right?

[spidercoz]

(A contract I have never signed, never seen, and never agreed to.)

Cute. I'll refer you back to your own first point:

* If you don't like it, leave!

Re:The government can't do anything right?

[dkleinsc]

I haven't seen the good old anarcho-capitalist argument in a while, but it's easy to take apart.

Based on your declared philosophy, your desire no taxes to exist, because any taxes that did exist would be an unjust theft. Therefor, the government can't do anything, because in a capitalist economy anything that anybody does is done either for themselves or in exchange for money, and you've just made sure that the government has no money, making them just another guy on the block. Ergo, your tax-free country has no functional government whatsoever.

If the government doesn't exist or is in the very least rendered completely impotent due to its lack of funds, then the capitalist side of your ideal world also falls apart, because I make a deal with you to buy, say, 10 bushels of apples for 1 ounce of gold, and when you give me the apples the economically rational thing to do is shoot you and keep the gold. And by making many such deals, I eventually acquire both enough stuff and gold to be able to raise my own private army, and before you know it we've got a bunch of warlords with armies running around trying to slaughter each other.

Even if you don't make any bad deals with people, you still have to deal with the large number of people who don't have anything of value to start with who can and will do what it takes to survive. So at the very least, you end up with large hordes of bandits running around trying to steal stuff from whoever has it.

With that being my other option, I'll take paying taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes, but it sure beats the alternative.

Re:The government can't do anything right?

[Korin43]

If the government doesn't exist or is in the very least rendered completely impotent due to its lack of funds, then the capitalist side of your ideal world also falls apart, because I make a deal with you to buy, say, 10 bushels of apples for 1 ounce of gold, and when you give me the apples the economically rational thing to do is shoot you and keep the gold. And by making many such deals, I eventually acquire both enough stuff and gold to be able to raise my own private army, and before you know it we've got a bunch of warlords with armies running around trying to slaughter each other.

So you're going to kill everyone who produces the things you want? And no one is going to stop you just because the government isn't doing it? If someone broke into your house and tried to kill you, would you just let them because the police aren't there to save you? If you knew there was no government, you wouldn't get your own protection (buy a gun, pay someone else to protect you, etc)?

Thank god you're reading slashdot

[iluvcapra]

...Where a link to an article about computer credentials can become an 800-count thread where people don't talk about the article, and prefer to spin yarns about Hangar 18 conspiracies all the while claiming the exact opposite of what's actually going on.

“That’s what a lot of people feared — that the government was going to take REAL ID and put it on the Internet and be able to track everybody’s Internet activity,” Stepanovich said.

That is not what’s contained in the NSTIC proposal, to the relief of privacy advocacy groups.

The government has set out principles — chief among them “choice, efficiency, security and privacy” — more than mechanics. But the basic idea is that you could have your offline identity verified online by a company of your choosing. That company would then provide you with a single credential you could then present (when you don’t want to be anonymous online) to Amazon, or VA.gov, instead of having to re-establish that you are who you say you are with every online transaction.

The device carrying your credential — a flash drive, a cellphone, a smart card of some kind — would authenticate itself, rather than referring Amazon to the company that vouches for you. Amazon would know the buyer was secure, and the credential would know it was communicating with a bookseller, but the authentication provider would never learn that you just bought Bob Woodward’s new book.

You can see why private industry would hate this proposal: it robs third parties of the ability to collect advertising and customer data through user authentication. So naturally they'll use scaremongering and useful idiots civil libertarians to claim this isn't what it is, and that we're much better off with a completely private system with no rules as to who can collect what data about what.

Oh, right ...

[gstoddart]

So ... I'm going to trust a government agency (especially one which has a vested interest in spying on us) to come up with a universal ID scheme which is secure, private, and actually works -- and doesn't have back doors?

What the hell does DHS care about how people keep track of their on-line accounts other than to be sure they can track you?

I'm sorry, but I don't trust this organization to perform this function ... either from a competence perspective, or from a trust perspective. I can only imagine it subsequently becoming illegal to not use this and Officer Friendly shows up at your door for your internet ID re-education.

I can see all sorts of chilling effects like freedom of association and anonymous speech -- but, it will be hammered home to protect against kiddie porn and identity theft.

This is a colossally bad idea, and worthy of a full-on tin-foil hat response. The government should stay the hell out of the internet and how people authenticate on it. And, really, unless you're also planning on having "Internet America" which is firewalled and distinct from the rest of the internet, this simply won't work.

Re:Dupe -- yes. Good to repeat often.

[icebike]

More importantly, make sure they read AT LEAST THIS FAR:

The government has set out principles — chief among them “choice, efficiency, security and privacy” — more than mechanics. But the basic idea is that you could have your offline identity verified online by a company of your choosing. That company would then provide you with a single credential you could then present (when you don’t want to be anonymous online) to Amazon, or VA.gov, instead of having to re-establish that you are who you say you are with every online transaction.
The device carrying your credential — a flash drive, a cellphone, a smart card of some kind — would authenticate itself, rather than referring Amazon to the company that vouches for you. Amazon would know the buyer was secure, and the credential would know it was communicating with a bookseller, but the authentication provider would never learn that you just bought Bob Woodward’s new book. In this way, all of the parties involved would never freely communicate with each other, preventing precisely the web of information that you probably don’t want anyone — private company or government agency — to track.

In short it is a strictly voluntary program of obtaining authentication credentials which only YOU say what you share with each. Like your PGP signature with a somewhat more reliable web of trust than some guy in Slovenia that signed your key.

Seriously, you can tell the author simply skimmed, and never read the actual government release on this idea, which can be found in pdf form here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf

The biggest problem I see is the mentioned "Mission Creep", where such an ID becomes mandatory in order to purchase anything on line. I could easily see that happening at the insistence of credit card companies.

Re:Trey Parker had it right

[erroneus]

Become? Don't you mean "IS"?

US "we think you have weapons of mass destruction banned by the world."
Iraq "no we don't"
US "we want to send inspectors to verify you don't"
Iraq "we don't have them and they are not welcome here"
US "then we have no choice but to..."
Iraq "okay okay!!! we'll let the inspectors in but they won't find anything!"
US "okay, they didn't find anything, but that just means you have them hidden better than we thought... we're invading you now."
Iraq "Oh shit... I need to hide in a hole."
US "damn... I guess they were right! There are no WMDs!! Our bad... but now that we are here, the region is unstable and we have to stay to clean up the mess we made... we're not going anywhere."

US "We think you are harboring a known terrorist. Hand him over."
Afghanistan "We're not even a real nation, we're a bunch of war lords in territories that are impossible to control, but be my guest -- if you want him, find him and take him."
US "Okay, here we come! And by the way, if you know anyone who might be a terrorist, just write the names down and we'll take them too."
Afghanistan "Okie dokie! I have a brother-in-law and a neighbor I don't like... they might be terrorists because I like you and they don't."
US "We've got room for them in hotel GITMO! Got any more?"

And that's just recently... there's more... lot's more.

Re:Not apples to apples

[Mr. Slippery]

A private business doesn't have the special right to employ coercion (meaning physical force) as a business model.

Of course it does. A private business requires property, and property is force: the right to call upon government force to control someone else's access to or use of space or resources or even information. (Or, if you like a more rough-and-tumble model, the right to be immune to government prosecution after initiating one's own use of force to control someone else's access.)

In a sane, functioning democracy, that force is used only to protect and promote the fulfillment of human needs, the "natural rights". In a plutocracy, it is used to protect the privilege of the ruling class.

Where government exists, that force exists. The only question is whether that force is directed for the mutual good, or towards the privilege of a few.

(If you want to talk about anarchy, fine, but we have to start with the understanding that all property, as the concept currently exists, is rooted in government -- "anarcho-capitalism" or right-Libertarianism is an inherent contradiction. In an anarchy, there is neither government power nor private power.)

Another "statist" argument

[presidenteloco]

The "statist" argument I make is that hierarchical governance will establish itself in human society no matter what.
We are descended from a long line of social animal species and cohabiting with many others.

Reciprocity is adaptive. It reduces the energy expended for an increment of survival probability.

Hierarchical coordination of reciprocity is a thermodynamically more stable configuration of reciprocity, because of the information flow topology (1 - n compared to n - n) leading to feasible alignment of goals and actions of larger numbers of social agents, and leading to fewer accidentally oppositional (and energy-wasting) actions.

You really can't fight this, given the general kind of survival oriented, energy-conserving, socially aware, plan-forming agents that we are.

So the only choice you have is what FORM (and to some degree what degree) of hierarchical governance you will have. You don't have a choice not to have it. The pattern will impose itself on you no matter what, eventually.

If you kick out the constitution that is an agreement to have democratically elected hierarchical governance, you'll get some other kind, emerging from the latent empire builders always present in human society. Whether this ends up being a glorified drug-lord or a benevolent but ruthless dictator is anyone's guess, but it will be something, you can be sure of that. It will start out with lots of small hierarchical organizations, and gradually they will coalesce into the largest (federal layered) hierarchical organization supportable by the communication, transportation, logistics coordinatation, and force-projection technologies of the day.

That one, you guessed it, we will end up calling "the state".