5 ms·

For most of us, most of the time, having the central site aware of all our pseudonyms wouldn't be a problem. Even if they divulged your identity upon lawful (co

by rm445 12y ago

For most of us, most of the time, having the central site aware of all our pseudonyms wouldn't be a problem. Even if they divulged your identity upon lawful (court order) request. Even if they consistently targeted advertising at you, through some kind of layer that let advertisers aim at demographics without revealing ID. Most of the time, it would be enough to have some sort of unified Google login (in a Google iframe or whatever), offered as a service to different sites on the Web, and different pseudonyms available that __don't reveal your 'true' ID or other pseudonyms to the site owner__. I'm a little surprised that Google haven't offered some kind of 'Google Identity' service to the web at large based on this sort of idea. It wouldn't be good enough for activists in oppressive regimes, but it would offer a convenience to general people who like to keep separate identities on different sites.

JadeNB 12y ago
> I'm a little surprised that Google haven't offered some kind of 'Google Identity' service to the web at large based on this sort of idea. The problem, I think, is that, given the current "don't be evil, just creepily self-serving!" attitude that seems to guide Google, no one would trust them. Even if one could trust them to keep one's identity private at launch, I am sure that anything like this would come loaded with the kind of "T&C may change without notice at any time" codicil that would allow them to permit themselves to disclose your identity later.
- aiiane 12y ago
  The popularity of "Sign In with Facebook" seems to belie that.
  - JadeNB 12y ago
    I think that I disagree (that this is a counterexample); it shows that people want a 'one-stop' identity solution, but not that they trust Facebook to keep their identity private.
    - aiiane 12y ago
      But the statement to which I was replying is "the problem is that ... no one would trust them". The popularity of "Sign In with Facebook" belies that it's a problem to not be trusted (at least when it comes to offering identity services).
      - JadeNB 12y ago
        Ah, I see. I was implicitly assuming that the parent's other requirement: > different pseudonyms available that __don't reveal your 'true' ID or other pseudonyms to the site owner__ (which isn't offered by Facebook—right?—and which does require trust in the issuer) would be part of the putative Google Identity. On the other hand, having spent this much time arguing that it wouldn't happen, I'm now wondering why OpenID with Google as 'vouching agent' (or whatever that part is called) doesn't count.

by rm445 12y ago

JadeNB 12y ago

> I'm a little surprised that Google haven't offered some kind of 'Google Identity' service to the web at large based on this sort of idea. The problem, I think, is that, given the current "don't be evil, just creepily self-serving!" attitude that seems to guide Google, no one would trust them. Even if one could trust them to keep one's identity private at launch, I am sure that anything like this would come loaded with the kind of "T&C may change without notice at any time" codicil that would allow them to permit themselves to disclose your identity later.

aiiane 12y ago
The popularity of "Sign In with Facebook" seems to belie that.
- JadeNB 12y ago
  I think that I disagree (that this is a counterexample); it shows that people want a 'one-stop' identity solution, but not that they trust Facebook to keep their identity private.
  - aiiane 12y ago
    But the statement to which I was replying is "the problem is that ... no one would trust them". The popularity of "Sign In with Facebook" belies that it's a problem to not be trusted (at least when it comes to offering identity services).
    - JadeNB 12y ago
      Ah, I see. I was implicitly assuming that the parent's other requirement: > different pseudonyms available that __don't reveal your 'true' ID or other pseudonyms to the site owner__ (which isn't offered by Facebook—right?—and which does require trust in the issuer) would be part of the putative Google Identity. On the other hand, having spent this much time arguing that it wouldn't happen, I'm now wondering why OpenID with Google as 'vouching agent' (or whatever that part is called) doesn't count.