6 ms·

> Now seems like the time to set the expectation that this service may not ever be used by private websites. Wha-huh? Why? What specifically is wrong with lo

> Now seems like the time to set the expectation that this service may not ever be used by private websites. Wha-huh? Why? What specifically is wrong with login.gov (or any government agency) running an oauth server and private websites allowing users to authenticate with it? How does that result in "a major new point of U.S. government control over the Internet"?

Vinnl 9y ago
It allows them to see what you log in to and thus what services you use, much like Facebook can often do as well. (Although luckily I haven't seen that as the only option anywhere yet - that might not be the case for a system that everyone in one's target audience might be forced to use.)
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  I'm pretty certain they can already do that though.
  - ISL 9y ago
    How?
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      Through all the drag net surveillance the NSA performs and using tools like those unveiled by Snowden and other whistleblowers.
- ineptech 9y ago
  > Now seems like the time to set the expectation that this service may not ever be used by private websites. Oh shit! The government knows I bought something from custom-fishing-lures.com! Ruuuuun! Seriously, what you just listed is a reason not to use the government's Oauth for every website and ban all other implementations. What OP seemed to say, and what I disputed, is the idea that this service should not ever be used by any private website even as one of several options.
  - arcbyte 9y ago
    Don't ever trust anyone who takes your stuff at the threat of violence.
    - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
      This is the basis for the "taxation is theft" argument. It's very weak and wry. The state exists as the means for ensuring positive societal outcomes, such as providing services that the private competitive market cannot or will not supply (tragedy of the commons, game theory, etc). One such possible service is an identity service - and we already have that through a hodge-podge of things like SSN, driving licenses, passports, etc. A consolidation of these services means greater efficiency, less waste, and therefore lower taxes. I'd respect the libertarian position more if it were framed as "greater utility of government" instead of the dogmatic "less government".
      - dnautics 9y ago
        >The state exists as the means for ensuring positive societal outcomes This is the moral basis for outcomes like, snuffing out a person for selling loose cigarettes. In the end, the privileged get away with infractions that hurt people en masse, and the disposessed get punished for offending the sensibilities of those who get to define "positivity" on behalf of society. I'd respect the state position more if there were well defined metrics for "greater utility" and a stronger non self regulating mechanism for accountability, instead of the dogmatic principle that voting constitutes consent.
  - mcbits 9y ago
    Yeah, they know you were browsing custom-fishing-lures.com on your phone just before those girls were strangled with fishing line one block away. The guy who did it wasn't using his imperial login at the time, so you're the only suspect at the moment. As long as you have a good alibi, they won't be able to hold you more than 72 hours and you should be able to get your job back.
    - 9y ago
- k_sh 9y ago
  Tinder is Facebook-only, last I checked
  - franciscop 9y ago
    It allows email now
simplify 9y ago
What happens when important websites start requiring login.gov, and then the government shuts down your account? Can't just sign up for a new one, can you?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ineptech 9y ago
  Er, why not? Why would the government shut down the account you use to identify yourself, if not because there was something wrong with it, in which case presumably they'd want you to create a new one?
  - simplify 9y ago
    I dunno, maybe one day a government-official-inspired muslim-phobia arises, and the government cuts off your access because you look like a middle-eastern man? Or maybe another flavor of the many instances of government minority-targeting we've seen in the past? The government does shady stuff all the time. It's unwise to give them such an easy kill-switch that cuts off any particular citizen's access at any time.
  - fiblye 9y ago
    I think whenever someone asks a "why would they?" question, it's best reworded as "why wouldn't they?" The government is made up of people, and given enough people, at least one is bound to do something stupid for reasons most won't understand. If someone can do something, no matter how ridiculous, at some point, someone will.
- adventured 9y ago
  Better yet. What if the government shuts off a web site's ability to utilize login.gov and effectively destroys the entire site by wiping out its userbase (in a scenario where a site is heavily using login.gov for authentication). That's a far greater threat than that they might shut off any given person's access. Step 1) regulate all speech by vaguely defined hate speech laws, which change based on who has power Step 2) Start arbitrarily destroying sites based on who is in power, utilizing login.gov + speech controls, to deem a given site in violation of speech codes
wyager 9y ago
It's bad enough when sites require you to use Facebook to log in. At least Facebook can't send you to jail and you can have (with some effort) a pseudonymous Facebook account. Sites will use such a service to invade your privacy even further, and the government has a record of every site you've logged into and when.
- ineptech 9y ago
  > Sites will use such a service to invade your privacy even further, That's not how OAuth works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth > the government has a record of every site you've logged into Only the ones where you chose to use their service. Or are we imaginging a future where this service has been made mandatory, and logins and passwords have been abolished? Honestly, the amount of FUD in this thread is absurd. The government already has an enormous amount of information about your online activity! If they want more, their strategy will probably not be writing open source software and hoping you opt in to it!
  - wyager 9y ago
    I know very well how oauth works, thanks, but I'm not sure why you thought that had anything to do with my comment. The invasion of privacy comes from websites insisting on knowing who I am and refusing to allow me to make anonymous/pseudonymous accounts. If there's a convenient API to do so provided by the government, that's bad for users. > Only the ones where you chose to use their service. There are hundreds of websites that require you to use Facebook to log in. With government-sanctioned ID, it will be worse. > Or are we imaginging a future where this service has been made mandatory, and logins and passwords have been abolished? This already exists in several countries, including Korea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_number Hopefully this serves as an indicator that your skepticism on this topic is wildly miscalibrated. There's no "imagination" involved, this is how it is right now in places where this exists. > their strategy will probably not be writing open source software and hoping you opt in to it! That is the exact strategy I would use if my goal was to help the government gain more control over the internet. Letting people give their freedom away in exchange for a bit of convenience is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Vinnl 9y ago

It allows them to see what you log in to and thus what services you use, much like Facebook can often do as well. (Although luckily I haven't seen that as the only option anywhere yet - that might not be the case for a system that everyone in one's target audience might be forced to use.)

beaconstudios 9y ago
I'm pretty certain they can already do that though.
- ISL 9y ago
  How?
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    Through all the drag net surveillance the NSA performs and using tools like those unveiled by Snowden and other whistleblowers.
ineptech 9y ago
> Now seems like the time to set the expectation that this service may not ever be used by private websites. Oh shit! The government knows I bought something from custom-fishing-lures.com! Ruuuuun! Seriously, what you just listed is a reason not to use the government's Oauth for every website and ban all other implementations. What OP seemed to say, and what I disputed, is the idea that this service should not ever be used by any private website even as one of several options.
- arcbyte 9y ago
  Don't ever trust anyone who takes your stuff at the threat of violence.
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
    This is the basis for the "taxation is theft" argument. It's very weak and wry. The state exists as the means for ensuring positive societal outcomes, such as providing services that the private competitive market cannot or will not supply (tragedy of the commons, game theory, etc). One such possible service is an identity service - and we already have that through a hodge-podge of things like SSN, driving licenses, passports, etc. A consolidation of these services means greater efficiency, less waste, and therefore lower taxes. I'd respect the libertarian position more if it were framed as "greater utility of government" instead of the dogmatic "less government".
    - dnautics 9y ago
      >The state exists as the means for ensuring positive societal outcomes This is the moral basis for outcomes like, snuffing out a person for selling loose cigarettes. In the end, the privileged get away with infractions that hurt people en masse, and the disposessed get punished for offending the sensibilities of those who get to define "positivity" on behalf of society. I'd respect the state position more if there were well defined metrics for "greater utility" and a stronger non self regulating mechanism for accountability, instead of the dogmatic principle that voting constitutes consent.
- mcbits 9y ago
  Yeah, they know you were browsing custom-fishing-lures.com on your phone just before those girls were strangled with fishing line one block away. The guy who did it wasn't using his imperial login at the time, so you're the only suspect at the moment. As long as you have a good alibi, they won't be able to hold you more than 72 hours and you should be able to get your job back.
  - 9y ago
k_sh 9y ago
Tinder is Facebook-only, last I checked
- franciscop 9y ago
  It allows email now

simplify 9y ago

What happens when important websites start requiring login.gov, and then the government shuts down your account? Can't just sign up for a new one, can you?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ineptech 9y ago
Er, why not? Why would the government shut down the account you use to identify yourself, if not because there was something wrong with it, in which case presumably they'd want you to create a new one?
- simplify 9y ago
  I dunno, maybe one day a government-official-inspired muslim-phobia arises, and the government cuts off your access because you look like a middle-eastern man? Or maybe another flavor of the many instances of government minority-targeting we've seen in the past? The government does shady stuff all the time. It's unwise to give them such an easy kill-switch that cuts off any particular citizen's access at any time.
- fiblye 9y ago
  I think whenever someone asks a "why would they?" question, it's best reworded as "why wouldn't they?" The government is made up of people, and given enough people, at least one is bound to do something stupid for reasons most won't understand. If someone can do something, no matter how ridiculous, at some point, someone will.
adventured 9y ago
Better yet. What if the government shuts off a web site's ability to utilize login.gov and effectively destroys the entire site by wiping out its userbase (in a scenario where a site is heavily using login.gov for authentication). That's a far greater threat than that they might shut off any given person's access. Step 1) regulate all speech by vaguely defined hate speech laws, which change based on who has power Step 2) Start arbitrarily destroying sites based on who is in power, utilizing login.gov + speech controls, to deem a given site in violation of speech codes

wyager 9y ago

It's bad enough when sites require you to use Facebook to log in. At least Facebook can't send you to jail and you can have (with some effort) a pseudonymous Facebook account. Sites will use such a service to invade your privacy even further, and the government has a record of every site you've logged into and when.

ineptech 9y ago
> Sites will use such a service to invade your privacy even further, That's not how OAuth works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth > the government has a record of every site you've logged into Only the ones where you chose to use their service. Or are we imaginging a future where this service has been made mandatory, and logins and passwords have been abolished? Honestly, the amount of FUD in this thread is absurd. The government already has an enormous amount of information about your online activity! If they want more, their strategy will probably not be writing open source software and hoping you opt in to it!
- wyager 9y ago
  I know very well how oauth works, thanks, but I'm not sure why you thought that had anything to do with my comment. The invasion of privacy comes from websites insisting on knowing who I am and refusing to allow me to make anonymous/pseudonymous accounts. If there's a convenient API to do so provided by the government, that's bad for users. > Only the ones where you chose to use their service. There are hundreds of websites that require you to use Facebook to log in. With government-sanctioned ID, it will be worse. > Or are we imaginging a future where this service has been made mandatory, and logins and passwords have been abolished? This already exists in several countries, including Korea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_number Hopefully this serves as an indicator that your skepticism on this topic is wildly miscalibrated. There's no "imagination" involved, this is how it is right now in places where this exists. > their strategy will probably not be writing open source software and hoping you opt in to it! That is the exact strategy I would use if my goal was to help the government gain more control over the internet. Letting people give their freedom away in exchange for a bit of convenience is one of the oldest tricks in the book.