bct

33 ms·

271.
by bct 15y ago
Google/Yahoo/etc. could have given you a memorable OpenID if they wanted. It's a good point though, the fact that email addresses have to be somewhat memorable/human-readable by nature is a good thing for BrowserID.
272.
by bct 15y ago
As a user, once your browser and email provider support it, it's single-click login (and signup), without any redirects. As a site operator, you don't need to choose which company you're going to accept as an auth provider, or have a login
273.
by bct 15y ago
browserid.org ("the BrowserID popup") is just a way to bootstrap the system. The idea is that browsers and email providers will support this protocol and browserid.org will be totally unneccessary. The major difference is it's totally irrel
274.
by bct 15y ago
I've read it more thoroughly now, but I'm still not sure where you're coming from. You'd rather use a secondary identity authority, even when a primary is available? Or are you saying you'd like to require a full send-me-an-email-and-i'll-c
275.
by bct 15y ago
Can you link me to where you're reading that? I don't see anything like that (but I've only skimmed the documentation).
276.
by bct 15y ago
That would be nice except I think that you will have different keys for different browsers, and for different machines. Presumably you could sync them up if you really wanted to, but it would be an awful user experience if that was mandator
277.
by bct 15y ago
A system that assumes that everyone is on GMail will tend to ensure that everyone is on GMail, whether or not that's a good thing. Decentralization leaves the possibility of that situation changing open. That matters. (Or, less philosophica
278.
by bct 15y ago
I don't follow you, what's invasive/interfering about it? You & your browser can decide whether any of the steps of this process actually happen.
279.
by bct 15y ago
> On the other hand, email is already known to be an unstable key for identity. Would be happier if there was only one company that provided email service and you were only allowed to have one address? That's essentially the situation w
280.
by bct 15y ago
Ignifero described what happens when your browser or email provider don't support BrowserID. When your browser and email provider both support BrowserID: 1. You log into e.g. gmail. 2. Your browser generates a keypair and sends the public k
281.
by bct 15y ago
> Facebook got this right from the beginning. What a weird double-standard. A feature of email (that you can have several, and you can change which one you use) is a failure, and a failure of Facebook (that it's one site, forever) is a
282.
by bct 15y ago
Your description is too vague to generate an answer to your question.
283.
by bct 15y ago
Ok, but only In the same way that typing in a username and password on a website allows them to track you.
284.
by bct 15y ago
There are two separate things here. Using the terminology from http://lloyd.io/how-browserid-works , you have: 1. Primary Identity Authority. This is a host (i.e. the one in your email address) that supports BrowserId. This is fully decen
285.
by bct 15y ago
Not really. It's a way for a user to prove to a site that they control an email address.
286.
by bct 15y ago
Some people think that using URLs instead of email address in OpenID was a big mistake. Having in-browser support for this kind of thing seems like a plus, too.
287.
by bct 15y ago
The intention seems to be that browserid.org is temporary, just there so that this can work until it's supported by browsers and identity providers directly. Once that is achieved, there's nothing extra to sign up for.
288.
by bct 15y ago
Once this is supported by browsers and email providers there is no "BrowserID" to be compromised, your email provider would have to be compromised (which already gives attackers access to all the sites that you use that email on). (Unless y
289.
by bct 15y ago
Anyone who thinks of "TV-watcher" as a significant part of their identity is a bit weird, too.
290.
by bct 15y ago
There's no question that people care more about what their immediate acquaintances know about them. That doesn't mean it's a great path for society, though. Unfortunately the fashionable thing to do these days is to assume that everything w
291.
by bct 15y ago
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Audio_Fingerprint The Picard MP3 tagger uses this kind of thing (and MusicBrainz' database of tracks and audio fingerprints) to identify files.
292.
by bct 15y ago
(Alternatively: Golly, it sounds like having your business depend on a third party that has no obligation to you has all kinds of problems!)
293.
by bct 15y ago
Golly, it sounds like re-inventing the web on top of a centralised platform has all kinds of problems! Who'd have thought?
294.
by bct 15y ago
True. Now that you point it out, it is odd that I chose to focus on that one divergence.
295.
by bct 15y ago
This is really cool, looks like it will make integrating your microcontroller with other systems really easy. But - and I hate to be the REST Nazi - this is RPC, not REST. "REpresentational State Transfer" is about making things happen by T
296.
by bct 15y ago
You don't need to get all philosophical about it, it's simple: Racist speech is A Bad Thing* because people actually do make that absurd, dumb and wrong presumption, and racist speech reinforces those racist attitudes. (* let's forget the w
297.
by bct 15y ago
I don't think there's any abuse here (after all, data: URIs exist). A value is just another kind of pointer. The important thing is that the identified resource is unambiguously identified.
298.
by bct 15y ago
What are the differences between this and a data: URI? Just the shortener and that it can use out-of-band Javascript for the editor?
299.
by bct 15y ago
It's still draconian error handling, all the spec says is that you have to stop parsing and notify the user. > Meh. There were many circumstances that prevented the adoption of XHTML-as-XHTML. One of them was the fact that your users wo
300.
by bct 15y ago
Please note that there is an important difference between "well-formed" and "valid".

More ›