WTH?? Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans (illegals, government, program)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't need government to protect us from ourselves.
Good thing that's not what's being suggested.
Quote:
If this is such a grave concern for you, might I recommend getting a program such as KeePass.
...
That's right, we have software that will help you remember those "oh so difficult to remember" passwords that trouble you so much you need the government to help you with it.
It's not about remembering passwords. I'm sure everybody in this forum have strong passwords that they memorize flawlessly and change every 90 days or sooner. It doesn't matter. The password/username combo is a weak authentication method per definition.
There's a load of serious business being done online, and the US doesn't have anything akin to a digital signature - no robust way to guarantee that a document or transaction is actually issued by the sender.
The business world, for one part, would benefit immensely if authenticity of electronic documents could be demonstrated and hold the same weight in a legal dispute as the signature on a physical letter. This would take some sort of standardized public key/private key system, with a suitable certificate infrastructure.
Making a system like that easy to use, secure, trusted and finally giving it legal backing is quite the challenge, and luckily some the US' finest brains have been working on it. Fascinating area, really.
Remember the big stink people made when the government wanted to know what library books you were reading? This is taking it up a much bigger notch and yet, surprisingly or not, not a huge outcry.
Are you guys seriously seeing this as some sort of universal Internet sign-in? Is that where the outrage is rooted?
Well having a government issued Internet ID will make it easier for them (states/fed) if they are able to push through this internet tax they were talking about.
If you are trying to hide there are some ways to do so but none are easy or foolproof. If the government wanted to know who you are from your posts on this or any other discussion board they Will find out, if you do not think so you are kidding yourself. It is why I warn some posters when they start crossing the line of free speech to making certain types of threats or call for the overthrow of our government, it is illegal and boards such as this Are monitored. You can get in real trouble for making certain statements publically and believe me those that might come to talk with you will have No Sense of Humor.
Casper
I don't doubt if the government can track you if there is sufficient reason to do so (e.g. national security threat or a warrant for a crime). However, the government is not supposed to be meddling in personal ventures (such as discussions on a board or surfing the net for information). Now, if there are statements deemed to be actual threats with the belief that they will be carried out (vs. a teenage girl saying she'd like to "kill" her parents for grounding her), then there is also sufficient reason to pursue action. People have the right to free speech, as long as that speech is not an agent for harming another person.
In any event, computer identifiers (IP Addresses) have a purpose in and of themselves. This is VERY different from a government-issued identifier that is used for a specific activity that the government has no business being involved in.
Its sad how you have no problem with this. Its a shame that you care so little about having the RIGHT to privacy. Makes one ask what other right are you willing to just give up. But please feel free to tell us how liberals/progressives are the ones that cares about peoples freedoms
It's not about remembering passwords. I'm sure everybody in this forum have strong passwords that they memorize flawlessly and change every 90 days or sooner. It doesn't matter.
One of us is a security expert (me), one of us is clearly not (you). You are wrong.
Quote:
There's a load of serious business being done online, and the US doesn't have anything akin to a digital signature - no robust way to guarantee that a document or transaction is actually issued by the sender.
Sure it does. You just have to choose to use it.
Quote:
The business world, for one part, would benefit immensely if authenticity of electronic documents could be demonstrated and hold the same weight in a legal dispute as the signature on a physical letter. This would take some sort of standardized public key/private key system, with a suitable certificate infrastructure.
And the business world already has these tools. Go look up the phrase hashing.
Quote:
Making a system like that easy to use, secure, trusted and finally giving it legal backing is quite the challenge, and luckily some the US' finest brains have been working on it. Fascinating area, really.
Anything involving the government and the citizens is by definition not to be trusted, and will not be secure.
One of us is a security expert (me), one of us is clearly not (you). You are wrong.
No offense, but everybody on the Internet is an expert.
Quote:
And the business world already has these tools. Go look up the phrase hashing.
That's vague - you might as well say look up the phrase "encryption". How do you ensure the authenticity of your document without a robust key authority to lean on and an agreed-upon way to access said authority?
Some industries run their own dedicated secure networks to try to circumvent the problem. Simple, obviously very expensive, and only as secure as the weakest participant.
Other industries have begun to tackle the issue in a reasonably sophisticated manner, the pharma industry taking the lead by running their own certificate authority. Will their solution scale and port to other industries, to say nothing of the consumer market? Probably not.
Quote:
Anything involving the government and the citizens is by definition not to be trusted, and will not be secure.
Obama does not suggest that the government run the infrastructure. But it would be smart to have some sort of legal underpinning when the first case about a forged digital signature hits the courtroom. (I'm trying to imagine a jury wrapping their heads around public/private key encryption. This may not end well.) What constitutes a binding digital signature under law?
And in the development phase, it would be smart to have an arbiter when the unavoidable conflicts of interest arise.
It's a sad fact that any key short enough to be easily memorized by the human brain is just as easily compromised by computers. And anyone with more than half a dozen accounts will either have a slip of paper with the PWs somewhere (post-it under the keyboard) or use the same PW everywhere.
The current default system with one username/pw per account is archaic, cumbersome and has more security holes than a shot-gunned Swiss cheese. Plus it's a nightmare to enforce, legally.
Having your mother's maiden name as the ultimate in security does not make for a very robust security solution.
Commercial websites set up authentication certificates through places like VeriSign all the time - having something akin to that for consumers would be boon for Internet security.
From where I sit, a robust Digital Signature is exactly the sort of thing Government should be overseeing. And it's being parked in the Commerce Department, not DHS or NSA, which is exactly where it should be. Hopefully, they'll not farm it out to the lowest bidder, Diebold-style.
The whole idea should be TRASHED. The LAST thing we need is more identification cards.
Why doesn't President OBAMA come out and be honest that he wants us all branded across our foreheads.
Verisign is BAD NEWS. They are the ones who have manufactured the chips that a few dumb Americans already have implanted in their arms "for safety's sake" and they are probably just waiting until the government can set up another disaster to frighten everyone and brainwash them enough into being willing to be chipped. Then of course the plan is to tie your chip to your bank accounts with the government having the ultimate power as to whether the chip stays on and you have access to your money. Or if they don't like your attitude one day, they'd turn it off. Tough beans if you needed access to your money. The government knows best!
Of course they'd have better access to our bank accounts than we would. Isn't that comforting? It is nice to know our government and President Obama "cares so much" about us to chip us like animals.
By the way, the chips in animals, besides causing cancer as they probably would in us as well, don't work to help reunite the lost pet with the owner because people and shelters don't know where to look for the chips, nor do they know how to read them. What a farce!
the calculus that all dictators employ to aggregate power: "Invoke an external and internal threat; develop the paramilitary force; create a secret prison system; surveil ordinary citizens; arbitrarily detain and released them; harass citizens' groups; target writers, entertainers, and other key individuals for dissenting; intimidate the press; recast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage"; and eventually subvert the rule of law."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
