3 ms·

Until we get government signed personal digital certificates, it's the only sure way to authenticate that you really are who you say you are. Does Instagram ne

by beojan 9y ago

Until we get government signed personal digital certificates, it's the only sure way to authenticate that you really are who you say you are. Does Instagram need to be that sure? Probably not.

otakucode 9y ago
Terrible idea. When a unique identifier is necessary, it should be minted for that purpose and only for that purpose. There is absolutely no reason, and substantial disincentive, to create any singular identifier that could ever be cross-referenced across disparate organizations/systems/etc. No, you really don't need to be able to find out exactly who voted for your party in the last election and has an income over 6 figures, nor do you need to know how many cancer survivors choose Budweiser. If what you actually need to make sure the person closing an account is the same as the one who opened it, then that is absolutely the only fact which that identifier should be capable of ever being used for.
- beojan 9y ago
  There are plenty of times you do need to authenticate someone's true identity. If you're opening a bank account, or offering a loan or credit account (of any sort). Personally, I'd go so far as even if you're opening an email or social media account under your purported real name (so someone else can't set up a Twitter or Instagram account pretending to be you). To clarify, given how easily people trust social media, identity verification should probably be required unless it is clearly a pseudonym.
  - otakucode 9y ago
    I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying being able to identify someone is bad, just that it should be tied to what actually matters. When you're opening a bank account or something, you don't care if that person buys beer, and it makes no sense for the same identifier to be used for both of those things and for a multitude of other random things. That only invites a great deal of trouble. You care about whether they have the collateral they claim or the job they claim and things like that, each of which could have their own unique identifier signed by the employer or similar. At each need for identification, the possible correlations need to be considered and minimized.
    - beojan 9y ago
      For things like buying beer, you simply don't keep records. Having separate ID systems for everything is just too cumbersome to be feasible.

by beojan 9y ago

Until we get government signed personal digital certificates, it's the only sure way to authenticate that you really are who you say you are. Does Instagram need to be that sure? Probably not.

otakucode 9y ago

Terrible idea. When a unique identifier is necessary, it should be minted for that purpose and only for that purpose. There is absolutely no reason, and substantial disincentive, to create any singular identifier that could ever be cross-referenced across disparate organizations/systems/etc. No, you really don't need to be able to find out exactly who voted for your party in the last election and has an income over 6 figures, nor do you need to know how many cancer survivors choose Budweiser. If what you actually need to make sure the person closing an account is the same as the one who opened it, then that is absolutely the only fact which that identifier should be capable of ever being used for.

beojan 9y ago
There are plenty of times you do need to authenticate someone's true identity. If you're opening a bank account, or offering a loan or credit account (of any sort). Personally, I'd go so far as even if you're opening an email or social media account under your purported real name (so someone else can't set up a Twitter or Instagram account pretending to be you). To clarify, given how easily people trust social media, identity verification should probably be required unless it is clearly a pseudonym.
- otakucode 9y ago
  I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying being able to identify someone is bad, just that it should be tied to what actually matters. When you're opening a bank account or something, you don't care if that person buys beer, and it makes no sense for the same identifier to be used for both of those things and for a multitude of other random things. That only invites a great deal of trouble. You care about whether they have the collateral they claim or the job they claim and things like that, each of which could have their own unique identifier signed by the employer or similar. At each need for identification, the possible correlations need to be considered and minimized.
  - beojan 9y ago
    For things like buying beer, you simply don't keep records. Having separate ID systems for everything is just too cumbersome to be feasible.