4 ms·
Reading the comments there's some very strange people out there. The long and short of it is that this is a state-driven, private sector managed federated ident
by iuguy 16y ago
Reading the comments there's some very strange people out there. The long and short of it is that this is a state-driven, private sector managed federated identity scheme. Traditional authentication mechanisms such as OpenID are not tied to you. That is to say, one minute you could be Bob Bobness, then the next Dave Daveness and there's no way you'd know.
With this there'd be a level of verification to say actually you are Bob Bobness. As long as it's voluntary I don't see a problem with it and I think there could be many practical applications in banking and for government web sites for example.
For the rest of us, I think we're happy with OpenID and our fictitious alter egos being linked to other fictitious alter egos :)
- gte910h 16y agoThe issues with monolithic schemes like this are like using your SSN for identifiers: Once the authentication is out there, it is a royal pain to get a new one if the old one is compromised.
- AndrewDucker 16y agoWith multiple different providers, I'm happy with it. I can be "Andrew Ducker - Certified by the UK government", but also "Samael, certified by Slashdot.org", depending on where I'm logging into, and what I'm up to.
- drdaeman 16y ago> providers Excuse me, but I'm against this very term being applied to identities. I possess my own identity and while I'm fine with others acknowledging and certifying this fact, I'm totally against others being "providers" of my identity.