4 ms·

I heard a discussion on the radio where a lady was describing the potential use of a third party identity provider for all social media. This would be instead o

by wackro 5y ago

I heard a discussion on the radio where a lady was describing the potential use of a third party identity provider for all social media. This would be instead of the government. If I understood it correctly, the third party would hold your ID etc, and would vouch for you on signup to services. Users would be anonymous/pseudonymous until a warrant was acquired by the police. A third party would be better IMO than the government. Not sure I like it either way tho. Who is the third party? Breaches would be an issue as the other poster has said. And too much like big brother.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I don't think having a third party instead of government control would be any better because the Snowden leaks showed us that the intelligence agencies will simply secretly co-opt the service to their own ends.
- tzs 5y ago
  Instead of a third party make it shared among multiple third parties such that it requires agreement among N of the third parties to reveal an identity. Spread the third parties among jurisdictions and make N large enough that no government has enough of the third parties under its jurisdiction to be able to coerce an identity reveal.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Yes, and I'm surprised that mandatory data retention by ISPs hasn't already gone further down that slippery slope. Now that people are used to that idea, I expect a government to say "Why don't you store the logs on our computers instead, to save money and be protected with military-grade security. We promise we will still go to the hassle of getting a warrant before reading from the database... Unless of course there's an emergency...". Perhaps the reason they haven't said this yet is because government cyber-security agencies have already gained real-time unwarranted access to the ISPs' logs. I don't suppose a company could be sued for not correctly securing this data against the government, since the government could hide behind "national security" to block any evidence being admitted in a court case.

by wackro 5y ago

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I don't think having a third party instead of government control would be any better because the Snowden leaks showed us that the intelligence agencies will simply secretly co-opt the service to their own ends.

tzs 5y ago
Instead of a third party make it shared among multiple third parties such that it requires agreement among N of the third parties to reveal an identity. Spread the third parties among jurisdictions and make N large enough that no government has enough of the third parties under its jurisdiction to be able to coerce an identity reveal.
dane-pgp 5y ago
Yes, and I'm surprised that mandatory data retention by ISPs hasn't already gone further down that slippery slope. Now that people are used to that idea, I expect a government to say "Why don't you store the logs on our computers instead, to save money and be protected with military-grade security. We promise we will still go to the hassle of getting a warrant before reading from the database... Unless of course there's an emergency...". Perhaps the reason they haven't said this yet is because government cyber-security agencies have already gained real-time unwarranted access to the ISPs' logs. I don't suppose a company could be sued for not correctly securing this data against the government, since the government could hide behind "national security" to block any evidence being admitted in a court case.