There will almost certainly be a PKI type trust model to support the network of i-brokers. You need it to authenticate i-brokers and to transmit info securely between i-brokers.
Different i-brokers could offer different levels of service and authentication. For example, someone might want to start an i-broker that offers the highest level of security, with biometric authentication, physically secure facilities, etc. Others may be happy to rely on password authentication.
The point is that with the Identity Commons model, anyone can be an i-broker, and all of them will be able to talk to each other. As I noted in a previous comment, one challenge is the social agreements. One place where Identity Commons may add value as a consortium of i-brokers is that it may develop a reputation metric for all its i-brokers, so that users can have some measure of trust in the i-brokers their signing up with and the sites that interact with the i-brokers.
There are two components to the Identity Commons infrastructure: a technical one and a social one. You will get to define contracts to control how companies may use your data. However, one problem scenario with the technology is the scenario you describe above. No amount of DRM or any other technology is going to change that.
That's where the social agreements come in. Identity Commons' goal is to develop social agreements among its members regarding reputation, contract enforceability, etc. These are really the more challenging problems that the project faces. However, the fact that Identity Commons is explicitly acknowledging this problem and is designing a process to address it gives me hope that this project has a real chance of succeeding.
Re:yet another flat namespace that won't scale
on
i-Names Pick Up Steam
·
· Score: 1
It's not a flat namespace. There are community i-names as well (under the @ namespace), and you'll be able to subdelegate namespaces under namespaces, such as @blueoxen*eekim.
You'll be able to store your personal data on your own computer. Also, Identity Commons will use the open standard SAML for single sign-on. Several members of the community serve on those committees. There are also folks talking to SXIP and other companies to make sure that it's not YASSO. The reason for this fundraiser is to help build these next pieces of the infrastructure.
Because the Identity Commons system is distributed, not centralized. This is not apparent yet because there's only one i-broker, but the code will be released as open source sometime early next year, and anyone will be able to be their own i-broker.
Also keep in mind that other than some minimum amount of information about you (probably password and email address), i-brokers will only store pointers to your personal information. In other words, you'll be able to store your personal data with whomever you trust (including yourself).
This is one reason they're using XRIs even though they're a bit awkward for personal names. XRIs can be used as very granular addresses.
Slashdot Mirror
SXIP and i-names aren't mutually exclusive. I believe that 2idi is planning on i-name-enabling the SXIP protocol.
There will almost certainly be a PKI type trust model to support the network of i-brokers. You need it to authenticate i-brokers and to transmit info securely between i-brokers.
Different i-brokers could offer different levels of service and authentication. For example, someone might want to start an i-broker that offers the highest level of security, with biometric authentication, physically secure facilities, etc. Others may be happy to rely on password authentication.
The point is that with the Identity Commons model, anyone can be an i-broker, and all of them will be able to talk to each other. As I noted in a previous comment, one challenge is the social agreements. One place where Identity Commons may add value as a consortium of i-brokers is that it may develop a reputation metric for all its i-brokers, so that users can have some measure of trust in the i-brokers their signing up with and the sites that interact with the i-brokers.
There are two components to the Identity Commons infrastructure: a technical one and a social one. You will get to define contracts to control how companies may use your data. However, one problem scenario with the technology is the scenario you describe above. No amount of DRM or any other technology is going to change that.
That's where the social agreements come in. Identity Commons' goal is to develop social agreements among its members regarding reputation, contract enforceability, etc. These are really the more challenging problems that the project faces. However, the fact that Identity Commons is explicitly acknowledging this problem and is designing a process to address it gives me hope that this project has a real chance of succeeding.
It's not a flat namespace. There are community i-names as well (under the @ namespace), and you'll be able to subdelegate namespaces under namespaces, such as @blueoxen*eekim.
You'll be able to store your personal data on your own computer. Also, Identity Commons will use the open standard SAML for single sign-on. Several members of the community serve on those committees. There are also folks talking to SXIP and other companies to make sure that it's not YASSO. The reason for this fundraiser is to help build these next pieces of the infrastructure.
Because the Identity Commons system is distributed, not centralized. This is not apparent yet because there's only one i-broker, but the code will be released as open source sometime early next year, and anyone will be able to be their own i-broker.
Also keep in mind that other than some minimum amount of information about you (probably password and email address), i-brokers will only store pointers to your personal information. In other words, you'll be able to store your personal data with whomever you trust (including yourself).
This is one reason they're using XRIs even though they're a bit awkward for personal names. XRIs can be used as very granular addresses.