3 ms·
I don't think that was the concern being expressed by the grandparent. If the concern was the government now has a secret trove of all your information this spe
by dkhenry 9y ago
I don't think that was the concern being expressed by the grandparent. If the concern was the government now has a secret trove of all your information this specific product doesn't change anything on that front as it doesn't store your information it just acts as an identity provider. If the concern is exploiting this one account allow an attacker to get at all your government systems, then yes this is a new treasure trove. I am going to fall on the side of its better to have one secure account then 100 different less secure accounts. I think the industry has found this to be the case and widespread use of Password Managers and Oauth based logins backs me up on that.
- dragonwriter 9y agoI'm not saying that it's not better net, I’m saying that, insofar as there is an internal or external risk of compromise or abuse, a single government identity provider poses the same kind of risk as a single government profile would provide.
- Joeri 9y agoI pity the fool who hacks such a strategic government service. The expression "threw away the key" comes to mind for what might happen to them.
- dragonwriter 9y agoImproper (but not necessarily unsupported from above) internal use is at least as worrisome as hacking, and centralization reduced the size of the necessary conspiracy and the probability of detection and whistleblowing.)