6 ms·

I agree with https://twitter.com/constmontague/status/1213309357204688899 https://twitter.com/constmontague/status/1213309357204688899 "... we need a new perso

I agree with https://twitter.com/constmontague/status/1213309357204688899 https://twitter.com/constmontague/status/1213309357204688899 "... we need a new personal identifier, SSNs are all stolen at this point" Though identity and authentication should be different things, as an identifier the only real problem with SSNs is that we should be using UUIDs instead. The hard part is authentication, which should have a far more secure process than merely knowing 9 digits everyone (re)uses.

mjevans 7y ago
Maybe it would be more clear if I used some examples. Identity: mjevans on news.ycombinator.com Authentication: is allowed to post as (Identity), is allowed to vote on things, etc. Identity alone should not imply authorization, when someone is asking for a proof of identity what they really want is a record that you are actually an identity (authorization).
- rexer 7y ago
  I think you may have authentication and authorization swapped.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    You're correct in that I'm grouping authentication and authorization. The three types of tuples would include: An identity (E.G. a person at an address). Proof that you are that person at that address. A list of things you're allowed to do at that address (IRL laws, or for a computer account publishing as that address/etc).
floatingatoll 7y ago
Can we calculate reproducible cryptographic private keys from fingerprints? If you solve that, you'll unlock an entire business model centered around "anonymous entities that can be regenerated at any time using a biometrics booth at the mall and a secret passphrase known only to you".
- playeren 7y ago
  That's even worse. Impossible to change fingerprints if a malicious party has your biometrics.
  - prox 7y ago
    Secure enclave like with Ios is an option. You never give your biometrics away.
    - playeren 7y ago
      Sure, I'm all for a key based solution. My opposition is against using biometrics for anything beyond convenience features.
      - tialaramex 7y ago
        Biometrics are relatively convenient and very safe when they're used in place (not remotely) with a human agent overseeing. No cops have ever let a suspect pop out to buy a 3D printer and some custom moulds before taking their prints. The airbase's gate guard isn't going to let you substitute a custom-made adversarial JPEG image for your face after asking you to roll down the window even though her normal job is statistical analysis and she has never fired that weapon she's carrying in anger. They're not great without supervision and they're completely hopeless remotely.
        playeren 7y ago
        > Biometrics are relatively convenient and very safe when they're used in place (not remotely) with a human agent overseeing. In your estimate, how large a percentage of biometric security implementations follow your description?
- BLanen 7y ago
  Yea but you'd literally be leaving your private key everywhere you are.
toohotatopic 7y ago
It already exists, it's your phone. There are some limits in linking it to existing identifiers like names or SSNs. However, that doesn't matter because due to its nature, the phone leaves a trail. Any serious abuse can be punished.
- q_andrew 7y ago
  India has a sim card system like this, but it is actually even less secure and shockingly easy to game. That's not even counting for the fact that not everyone has a cell phone (a minority, but still exists).
  - toohotatopic 7y ago
    How do you game it apart from stealing a phone? It may be easy to get another identity but that's a feature. If somebody commits a serious crime, the joined location of the phones will reveal the true identity unless somebody invests an amount of effort that's equal to buying a new passport.
    - judge2020 7y ago
      I imagine sim swapping is a thing over there as well, maybe even easier to do than in the US.
      - toohotatopic 7y ago
        So you get several identities. How do you game the system? Intelligent agencies have failed to keep their phone usage cleanly separated. It's not that easy. E.g. if you want to avoid progressive income taxes by registering several companies, your burner phone stands out because it doesn't have any other contacts. That will be further investigated. Then you need the name of a living person who doesn't use a mobile phone to register it because otherwise, he would operate two phones at two different places. Another red flag.
- gondo 7y ago
  This is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. Especially for people who move a lot. Phone numbers get reused. I am currently maintaining 4 SIM cards just to keep services relaying on them active. About 2 months ago I forgot to recharge one of those SIM cards and was locked out of one of my bank accounts.
miki123211 7y ago
I think we need a worldwide, federated identity system. There should be multiple identity providers, mostly governments and organizations who already have lots of info about you, for example banks. This already works in Poland and several other european countries. Such organizations should verify that you are you the way they currently do, and give you a way of authorizing yourself, i.e. sms, mobile app, one time passwords etc. If someone needed to verify your identity, they would go through your chosen org for authentication. This approach has several benefits. 1. You can provide as much or as little info as you want. The info you provide could include true/false assertions. For example, a porn website could just ask the org whether your age >= 18, without the need to know your exact birthdate,. Same for citizenship, disability, criminal record etc. 2. You can easily integrate that with other services, for example payments or even a secure communication channel, letting companies contact you without learning any details about you. There could even be a secure shipping service, where the company selling you the product only gets a special qr code to stick on the package,. Only one shipping company would get your real address, the rest would just know the next leg of the route. 3. You could provide instant "not a robot" verification, without any captchas, without any personal data and without any hassle. The authorizing org would just give the requestor a token, different for each visit, that they could send with a "add to blacklist request". The next time a blacklisted user would try to log in to that service, their org would refuse to provide the token. 4. Ability to provide legal accountability without rewealing anything. The authenticating org would just provide a token to a service. The user could do whatever they wished, but, in case they'd do something illegal, the police could just force the org to actaully reveal who was behind that token. Of course, the system would have to be regulated by a global body of governments or organizations. Each org would have certain resoponsibilities, i.e. allowing you to port your id to somewhere else, not requesting more data than necessary, honoring blacklists etc. If that system existed, implementing a safe, seamless online and real0-life experience would be trivial. Just imagine if it would be trivial to trace each website, each comment, everything to a real person with a court order, while not giving most companies any data whatsoever.
- judge2020 7y ago
  > There should be multiple identity providers I think we already have that: Google ;) The only difference is that Google doesn't provide identity verification, only identity validation when you have previous knowledge of a Google account being associated to a user account.
tialaramex 7y ago
SSNs are much too short, and were mostly issued in a foolish and predictable way (if you're a kid you might have a random SSN but most Americans still have ones issued the old way). Given the US plausible population load, issuing a randomly chosen 12 digit number incorporating a check digit would have been a better start. But the authentication problem is the tricky part though, governments don't have a reliable way to authenticate their citizens today and even if you have a good will intent to fix this, that can be hijacked by people with less saintly motives. See India or China for how that might not go well.
- avital 7y ago
  The Netherlands has a digital government sign-in ("DigID") which works very well, secured using text messaging or 2 factor auth. With it you view all of your official documents across all branches of government. It allows for delegating permissions (say between a married couple). It's really great and shows that with competence these systems work out great.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  > governments don't have a reliable way to authenticate their citizens today Yours might not but mine (Norway) seems to work quite well.
clairity 7y ago
UUIDs are a terrible idea, as you're completely ignoring the UX of SSNs (short, just numbers, easy to remember, structured, etc.) SSNs are account numbers, and only account numbers, for your social security benefits, not an all-purpose resident identity number. they've only been co-opted to be such identifiers because everyone wants to piggyback on, and not additionally pay for, the extra measures the SSA has taken to uniquely identify workers when granting the numbers so we can't easily steal each others' retirement benefits. tl;dr: SSNs are (financial) account numbers, not people identifiers, and should be treated like bank account numbers (for example).
idhdu7dhj3ej 7y ago
This will never happen in a useful fashion at the federal level unless the Republicans get the house, Senate, and Presidency again and don't waste the time bickering with themselves. It would have to be implemented on a state by state basis. A national identifier would be able to exclude illegal immigrants too easily for the Democrats to support it. Over 1/3 illegal immigrants in America use ssn's of other people, most stolen but some belonging to friends or relatives. I realize this might seem inflammatory as a post but this simply isn't a situation that can be removed from American politics in this instance. Edit: And for people who think I'm making this up, the GAO literally inquired with the IRS about the fraudent ssn use matter. Edit 2: Lots of metric input but no comments. If you're browsing idly, let this be an example of HN culture for you.

mjevans 7y ago

Maybe it would be more clear if I used some examples. Identity: mjevans on news.ycombinator.com Authentication: is allowed to post as (Identity), is allowed to vote on things, etc. Identity alone should not imply authorization, when someone is asking for a proof of identity what they really want is a record that you are actually an identity (authorization).

rexer 7y ago
I think you may have authentication and authorization swapped.
- mjevans 7y ago
  You're correct in that I'm grouping authentication and authorization. The three types of tuples would include: An identity (E.G. a person at an address). Proof that you are that person at that address. A list of things you're allowed to do at that address (IRL laws, or for a computer account publishing as that address/etc).

floatingatoll 7y ago

Can we calculate reproducible cryptographic private keys from fingerprints? If you solve that, you'll unlock an entire business model centered around "anonymous entities that can be regenerated at any time using a biometrics booth at the mall and a secret passphrase known only to you".

playeren 7y ago
That's even worse. Impossible to change fingerprints if a malicious party has your biometrics.
- prox 7y ago
  Secure enclave like with Ios is an option. You never give your biometrics away.
  - playeren 7y ago
    Sure, I'm all for a key based solution. My opposition is against using biometrics for anything beyond convenience features.
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      Biometrics are relatively convenient and very safe when they're used in place (not remotely) with a human agent overseeing. No cops have ever let a suspect pop out to buy a 3D printer and some custom moulds before taking their prints. The airbase's gate guard isn't going to let you substitute a custom-made adversarial JPEG image for your face after asking you to roll down the window even though her normal job is statistical analysis and she has never fired that weapon she's carrying in anger. They're not great without supervision and they're completely hopeless remotely.
      - playeren 7y ago
        > Biometrics are relatively convenient and very safe when they're used in place (not remotely) with a human agent overseeing. In your estimate, how large a percentage of biometric security implementations follow your description?
BLanen 7y ago
Yea but you'd literally be leaving your private key everywhere you are.

toohotatopic 7y ago

It already exists, it's your phone. There are some limits in linking it to existing identifiers like names or SSNs. However, that doesn't matter because due to its nature, the phone leaves a trail. Any serious abuse can be punished.

q_andrew 7y ago
India has a sim card system like this, but it is actually even less secure and shockingly easy to game. That's not even counting for the fact that not everyone has a cell phone (a minority, but still exists).
- toohotatopic 7y ago
  How do you game it apart from stealing a phone? It may be easy to get another identity but that's a feature. If somebody commits a serious crime, the joined location of the phones will reveal the true identity unless somebody invests an amount of effort that's equal to buying a new passport.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    I imagine sim swapping is a thing over there as well, maybe even easier to do than in the US.
    - toohotatopic 7y ago
      So you get several identities. How do you game the system? Intelligent agencies have failed to keep their phone usage cleanly separated. It's not that easy. E.g. if you want to avoid progressive income taxes by registering several companies, your burner phone stands out because it doesn't have any other contacts. That will be further investigated. Then you need the name of a living person who doesn't use a mobile phone to register it because otherwise, he would operate two phones at two different places. Another red flag.
gondo 7y ago
This is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. Especially for people who move a lot. Phone numbers get reused. I am currently maintaining 4 SIM cards just to keep services relaying on them active. About 2 months ago I forgot to recharge one of those SIM cards and was locked out of one of my bank accounts.

miki123211 7y ago

I think we need a worldwide, federated identity system. There should be multiple identity providers, mostly governments and organizations who already have lots of info about you, for example banks. This already works in Poland and several other european countries. Such organizations should verify that you are you the way they currently do, and give you a way of authorizing yourself, i.e. sms, mobile app, one time passwords etc. If someone needed to verify your identity, they would go through your chosen org for authentication. This approach has several benefits. 1. You can provide as much or as little info as you want. The info you provide could include true/false assertions. For example, a porn website could just ask the org whether your age >= 18, without the need to know your exact birthdate,. Same for citizenship, disability, criminal record etc. 2. You can easily integrate that with other services, for example payments or even a secure communication channel, letting companies contact you without learning any details about you. There could even be a secure shipping service, where the company selling you the product only gets a special qr code to stick on the package,. Only one shipping company would get your real address, the rest would just know the next leg of the route. 3. You could provide instant "not a robot" verification, without any captchas, without any personal data and without any hassle. The authorizing org would just give the requestor a token, different for each visit, that they could send with a "add to blacklist request". The next time a blacklisted user would try to log in to that service, their org would refuse to provide the token. 4. Ability to provide legal accountability without rewealing anything. The authenticating org would just provide a token to a service. The user could do whatever they wished, but, in case they'd do something illegal, the police could just force the org to actaully reveal who was behind that token. Of course, the system would have to be regulated by a global body of governments or organizations. Each org would have certain resoponsibilities, i.e. allowing you to port your id to somewhere else, not requesting more data than necessary, honoring blacklists etc. If that system existed, implementing a safe, seamless online and real0-life experience would be trivial. Just imagine if it would be trivial to trace each website, each comment, everything to a real person with a court order, while not giving most companies any data whatsoever.

judge2020 7y ago
> There should be multiple identity providers I think we already have that: Google ;) The only difference is that Google doesn't provide identity verification, only identity validation when you have previous knowledge of a Google account being associated to a user account.

tialaramex 7y ago

SSNs are much too short, and were mostly issued in a foolish and predictable way (if you're a kid you might have a random SSN but most Americans still have ones issued the old way). Given the US plausible population load, issuing a randomly chosen 12 digit number incorporating a check digit would have been a better start. But the authentication problem is the tricky part though, governments don't have a reliable way to authenticate their citizens today and even if you have a good will intent to fix this, that can be hijacked by people with less saintly motives. See India or China for how that might not go well.

avital 7y ago
The Netherlands has a digital government sign-in ("DigID") which works very well, secured using text messaging or 2 factor auth. With it you view all of your official documents across all branches of government. It allows for delegating permissions (say between a married couple). It's really great and shows that with competence these systems work out great.
kwhitefoot 7y ago
> governments don't have a reliable way to authenticate their citizens today Yours might not but mine (Norway) seems to work quite well.

clairity 7y ago

UUIDs are a terrible idea, as you're completely ignoring the UX of SSNs (short, just numbers, easy to remember, structured, etc.) SSNs are account numbers, and only account numbers, for your social security benefits, not an all-purpose resident identity number. they've only been co-opted to be such identifiers because everyone wants to piggyback on, and not additionally pay for, the extra measures the SSA has taken to uniquely identify workers when granting the numbers so we can't easily steal each others' retirement benefits. tl;dr: SSNs are (financial) account numbers, not people identifiers, and should be treated like bank account numbers (for example).

idhdu7dhj3ej 7y ago

This will never happen in a useful fashion at the federal level unless the Republicans get the house, Senate, and Presidency again and don't waste the time bickering with themselves. It would have to be implemented on a state by state basis. A national identifier would be able to exclude illegal immigrants too easily for the Democrats to support it. Over 1/3 illegal immigrants in America use ssn's of other people, most stolen but some belonging to friends or relatives. I realize this might seem inflammatory as a post but this simply isn't a situation that can be removed from American politics in this instance. Edit: And for people who think I'm making this up, the GAO literally inquired with the IRS about the fraudent ssn use matter. Edit 2: Lots of metric input but no comments. If you're browsing idly, let this be an example of HN culture for you.