4 ms·
Your mother doesn't need to understand it. I gave the technical details because this is Hacker News. Brokers need to make setup simpler, yes. But even today, lo
by djacobs 16y ago
Your mother doesn't need to understand it. I gave the technical details because this is Hacker News. Brokers need to make setup simpler, yes. But even today, logging in is as simple as typing =djacobs.
- nkohari 16y agoOr I could type nkohari and a password...
- djacobs 16y agoExactly. This eliminates 50% of the hassle. Maybe 75% of that if you consider having a single name to type in on any site on the Internet.
- nkohari 16y agoI don't understand how that's the case. You still need to authenticate with your OpenID provider using -- you guessed it -- a username and password. Or, you could allow your provider to put a persistent cookie on your machine, and (as we've seen from the Firesheep news lately) making it that much more likely your identity will be compromised. (Not to mention if someone steals the cookie for your OpenID provider, the impact is potentially much larger.) The i-name stuff is just DNS for OpenID providers. It adds another layer of bullshit on top of layers of bullshit that don't need to be there in the first place. I carry the key to my car. When I want to get in, I press the button on the fob or I open the door with the key. OpenID is like having to make a phone call to someone, tell them I need to get into my car, so they can then press a button that will open my car door. And hopefully they aren't on their lunchbreak.
- djacobs 16y agoIf I had 60 cars scattered around the city, well, I'd want that phone service. Security issues are not unique to i-names, and I think the abstraction layer (removing a domain name from your login) is important and useful. Disagree if you must.