The phrase "password sharing" was half-serious (and apparently not very effective) view bait--I wouldn't call it that on the public site. :-) Some reasons mult

The phrase "password sharing" was half-serious (and apparently not very effective) view bait--I wouldn't call it that on the public site. :-) Some reasons multiple superusers aren't enough: * Superusers can disable or delete each other. Most parties won't need access very often so might not know until it's too late. In many client/consultant relationships you trust, but you verify. (The importance of the login-testing daemon.) * Being reliably alerted when someone has logged on ranges from difficult to impossible in most systems. For backup/emergency type people, you trust them enough to make it possible for them to have access, but you'd really want to know if they ever used it when you weren't expecting. (And superusers can forge logs.) * Many systems (like shared hosting accounts) actually don't allow for multiple super-users. * Independent consultants/free-lancers need an answer to the "what happens if you get hit by a bus/are on vacation/have a power outage" question. 2-4 person federations of independents providing backup service for each other is currently impractical when each has several systems to access. It's bad enough that I have N logins of my own I have to keep track of--having to keep up with a further 2-3N logins (that I have to change periodically if I'm doing right) is way too much overhead. The only current workaround I know of is having the same password for everything, which is extremely poor security. An important use I didn't consider at first is personal password escrow--making a way for my various accounts to be accessed in case of personal emergency.