5 ms·

It would make a lot of sense. The fact that currently there isn't a single unique identifier per online user allows for an unregulated environment. Obviously,

It would make a lot of sense. The fact that currently there isn't a single unique identifier per online user allows for an unregulated environment. Obviously, there are things like IPs, the mobile device identifies (phone number...) or even single-sign-on platforms but the bottom line is that there isn't something that is unique per user and platform independent. Should there be a unique credential per user just to access anything online? From the security perspective, you would definitely say yes but you could also imagine that this could be taken too far http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-china-is-watching-its-citizens-in-a-modern-surveillance-state-2018-4 http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-china-is-watching-its-citi...

Asooka 8y ago
You're basically describing "The digital imprimatur" [1]. It will absolutely be abused to hell and back if implemented, starting with "it's for the children", going through "artists must get paid" and arriving at "we have always been at war with Eastasia". [1] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
- digi_owl 8y ago
  I find myself thinking of the rise of Twitter block scripts, that one aims at a Twitter account and then proceeds to trawl the links between the accounts and add them to a block list for another account. A tool that was conceived and is in heavy use by what one may well call the "alt-left"...
EGreg 8y ago
From the security perspective, there should NOT be one. It depends on whose security you are safeguarding. That of the people, or a small number of services? In the world we are moving to online, scuttlebutt and MaidSAFE and others will simply LACK a back end that even knows who’s logging in or what data is being sought. Protection of data would happen via end to end encryption. That is MORE secure than trusting someone to safeguard your data - not less.
- al_ramich 8y ago
  Not sure how end-to-end encryption would protect the end user from getting SPAM email, being trolled on the SM, seeing fake news or equivalent. Most of the issues come from the fact that there are no universal quality or identity checks for the information being published online. Perhaps unique/traceable identifier should only be required when you are creating content that others can see.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - paulsutter 8y ago
    I recommend Kim JongUn as an advisor for your proposed project, he’ll understand the needs of your target customer best
  - EGreg 8y ago
    There’s this thing called reputation. Also this thing called science. And another thing called Liberal Democracy. In all these systems, people get to make up their own minds with regard to claims about reality, as well as the trustworthiness of a given service. Your solution is a Ministry of Truth. Here are some actual solutions: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114
13of40 8y ago
In a world with billions of such credentials, mostly in the hands of people who just know that it "makes their AOL work" it would probably be trivial to steal as many as a person wanted.

Asooka 8y ago

You're basically describing "The digital imprimatur" [1]. It will absolutely be abused to hell and back if implemented, starting with "it's for the children", going through "artists must get paid" and arriving at "we have always been at war with Eastasia". [1] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

digi_owl 8y ago
I find myself thinking of the rise of Twitter block scripts, that one aims at a Twitter account and then proceeds to trawl the links between the accounts and add them to a block list for another account. A tool that was conceived and is in heavy use by what one may well call the "alt-left"...

EGreg 8y ago

From the security perspective, there should NOT be one. It depends on whose security you are safeguarding. That of the people, or a small number of services? In the world we are moving to online, scuttlebutt and MaidSAFE and others will simply LACK a back end that even knows who’s logging in or what data is being sought. Protection of data would happen via end to end encryption. That is MORE secure than trusting someone to safeguard your data - not less.

al_ramich 8y ago
Not sure how end-to-end encryption would protect the end user from getting SPAM email, being trolled on the SM, seeing fake news or equivalent. Most of the issues come from the fact that there are no universal quality or identity checks for the information being published online. Perhaps unique/traceable identifier should only be required when you are creating content that others can see.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- paulsutter 8y ago
  I recommend Kim JongUn as an advisor for your proposed project, he’ll understand the needs of your target customer best
- EGreg 8y ago
  There’s this thing called reputation. Also this thing called science. And another thing called Liberal Democracy. In all these systems, people get to make up their own minds with regard to claims about reality, as well as the trustworthiness of a given service. Your solution is a Ministry of Truth. Here are some actual solutions: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114

13of40 8y ago

In a world with billions of such credentials, mostly in the hands of people who just know that it "makes their AOL work" it would probably be trivial to steal as many as a person wanted.