Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

[villager]

Source: CBS/CNET

Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

STANFORD, Calif. - President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

It's "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.

That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.

<snip>

"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

<snip>


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html

---

It just gets worse and worse with these "change" guys...

[emilyg]

1. kick

[targetpractice]

2. Dibs... I call "targetpractice"!

This is a surprising initiative. I don't welcome the idea, but my first reaction is "meh" if I can keep my screennames I've created thusfar.

[snot]

10. Are you sure you want to be so cavalier with everyone else's privacy, etc.?

Are you not willing to fight tyranny on anyone's behalf but your own?

Don't mean to be hard on you; but your subject led me to expect wisdom.

[targetpractice]

89. Poor attempt at sarcasm on my part...

I was so blown away that the administration was considering this idea, that I tried to make light of it.

It is true, however, that when new web services come online... There is a rush to grab screennames based on real names... I'm sure it will be the same for this new thing.

[roguevalley]

87. RV thereby eyes a new candidate for 2012. I hope someone

steps forward who isn't a dork because I will give them good scrutiny

[Duer 157099]

3. Ah. So instead of needing a "kill switch" for the whole thing

They can just "kill switch" select users that are problematic or annoying?

I see.

[me b zola]

26. Bingo

...

[molly77]

44. Fascist USA has the right to assassinate any US citizen and

pronounce them a terrorist.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

59. Like those arguing points of view against

the 'official' story.

[earth mom]

169. Last week, I went to type a reply to an OP & as soon as I typed the words "cat food commission"

my computer (mac) shut off totally. Not my modem, not anything else that was plugged into the same power strip.

So...maybe what you are saying has already happened to me...and it freaked me out but good. :yoiks:

[The Northerner]

4. I really hope this doesn't materialize!

:-(

[ChazII]

103. Echoing your thoughts

I hope that this idea doesn't become reality.

[sam sarrha]

123. did you read the article this far....

"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

[LisaL]

134. What is he talking about there?

How are they going to create "more trusted digital identities?"

[No Elephants]

172. I have more of a problem with "why" than I do with "what" or "how."

[No Elephants]

171. Yes. Is your point that we should swallow Locke's self-serving statement whole?

Did you expect U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, speaking to say, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, "This is yet another expansion of Big Brother policies. It's supposed to be voluntary---to begin with, anyway. So much for what you thought was left of your privacy and other civil rights."

Since when--and why--is government so worried about whether I can remember my Internt passwords? And why should millions (or more) in taxpayer dollars be spent on my inability to deal with my own personal business? Not as though internet folk aren't already dealing with that by emailing you your own password, if you forget it.


If that is not your point, what is your point?

[GSLevel9]

5. wonderful idea, Comrade. nt

[Ruperto31]

207. Is this supposed to be anti-communist propaganda? Or just anti-Obama?

Or both? I'm opposed to the policy, and I'm disappointed in Obama. But he's not a communist. And communism does not necessarily entail "Big Brother" techniques.

[jtuck004]

6. Ok, we are going to need some national moderators. Any volunteers? n/t

[Systematic Chaos]

7. Motherfuckers can "Internet ID" my fat, white ass.

n/t

[andlor]

42. +1

[4dsc]

47. +2

[Maat]

114. +1 (n/t)

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

145. +1

[iamtechus]

8. Could be a really bad idea

Does this mean that if I get in an argument with some wacko on a message board he can, based on my "internet ID", come looking for me?

Does it mean that governments, corporations and political parties can mine the data in message boards and rank people on a political scale? (or any other attribute)

[trud]

15. Does this mean that if I get in an argument with some wacko on a message board

Why yes, it can. I haven't used my real name on the net since I posted in favor of the Palestinians years ago, and I got email death threats and graphic descriptions of how I was going to be tortured, accompanied by my work and home addresses, and email and letters sent to the CEO of the company I worked for calling me anti-Semitic.

[LawnKorn]

63. Gives Government another method to track the whereabouts of individuals through Internet usage

A person's cell phone, credit card, and ATM usage are all accessible for law enforcement (and the NSA, FBI, CIA, DOD, _fill in the blank_). The dark predictions about Germany in the 1930 and 40s where the black uniformed soldier yells "Show me your papers!" becoming part of our Government don't seem seem so far fetched these days.

[Downwinder]

65. Plus, if you come to my web site and display your ID, now I have it.

If I want to take it somewhere else I can.

[AndyTiedye]

119. Only If You Also Have Their Private Key. This Isn't Like a Credit Card Number

You can't impersonate someone just because you have their certificate.
You would need to sign something with their private key.

You don't give the private key to ANYONE, ever!

[No Elephants]

174. How do YOU know? Article says, "Details about the "trusted identity" project are unusually scarce."

SS #s once were between you and your boss and maybe IRS. Now, I have to give mine to my cable company before I can ask them even if their service is out in a given area. Well, last 4 digits anyway.

Banks, credit card companies, medical insurers--I may as well skywrite it. Sure, I don't have to give it to anyone. I could always live in the woods on wild mushrooms and berries, without plumbing or electricity.

Besides, I am not worrying about who I give my private key to. I am worried about how others will use it and who they will give it to.

[christx30]

214. Not to mention

that this could be a way of implementing a national internet sales tax.
Plus, what guarentee is there that they won't track what political sites we go to? What you say about certain officials? You might not threaten Senator Jackass (R, Texas), but knowing that they know that you, Sid Philips of Anytown is calling calling him Senator Jackass (R, Texas) might put a damper on you doing so.

The internet needs to remain as anonymous as possible. I know there are IP addresses and stuff. But I don't want this at all.

edited to add:
Don't forget:
When Ceausescu was dictator of Romania, everybody had to register their typewriters. They had to bring them down to the police station and type a few phrases - so that the police would have a type sample in case somebody started circulating typewritten anti- Ceausescu fliers...

[Ian David]

71. No. Only if the message board you are using requires you to use a "Trusted I.D."

And also only if said site requires you to post with your trusted I.D. made public.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

74. which will be a requirement shortly.

Who would have imagined that Obama is as bad on Privacy as Bush, perhaps worse?

[AndyTiedye]

122. That Simply Wouldn't Work. The Internet is International

[No Elephants]

176. What if I am willing to limit my board or other internet services to folks from nations

that issue trusted ids?

[AndyTiedye]

212. If It is Your Board, You Can Use Any Authentication You Want. That is the Point

Some boards today require users to use their real names.
It is up to whoever runs the board.

[No Elephants]

175. Please see Reply 174,

[cutlassmama]

110. Yes it does. If this goes through I'm done with the internet forver

[snagglepuss]

9. "It just gets worse and worse with these "change" guys..." Exactly.

I suppose it was wrong to have assumed that 'change' meant something positive. What was the name of the 50's scifi movie that ended when someone realized the alien's book "To Serve Humans" wasn't a call to altuism but a cookbook?

[Art_from_Ark]

27. That was an episode from The Twilight Zone

and it was originally broadcast in the early '60s

[starroute]

85. No, it was *originally* a short story by Damon Knight

"To Serve Man," Galaxy Science Fiction, November 1950.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man

That was the second issue of Galaxy, which had started with a bang the month before thanks to stories like that one. That same issue also included short fiction by Isaac Asimov, Fritz Leiber, Fredric Brown, and Anthony Boucher, plus an installment of a serial novel by Clifford Simak -- all major names at the time.
http://variety-sf.blogspot.com/2010/03/galaxy-science-fiction-vol-1-no-2.html

Of course, nobody but me and about three other people remembers this stuff or thinks it's worth caring about -- but somebody has to.

[Norrin Radd]

157. Chalk me up as number four.

Huge Leiber fan.

[starroute]

164. And the Leiber story in that issue was "Coming Attraction"

About a visiting Brit who is horrified by an America that has gone crazy-violent-creepo-nutzoid.

Could never actually happen, of course...

[No Elephants]

177. Clockwork Orange was set where?

[snot]

11. Btw, K&R'd, v. impt.

[AndyTiedye]

12. This is Just a Digital Signature. You Won't Have to Use It

…except possibly for filing tax returns or other government forms electronically where you are not the least bit anonymous anyway.

[regnaD kciN]

22. Amazing...a voice of reason here!

I didn't know they still existed at DU...

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

178. Self delete

[datasuspect]

41. that isn't the case in a "soft" totalitarian state

its stated purpose will vary from its purpose IN PRACTICE.

[AndyTiedye]

153. Nothing Gets Signed Unless You Configure It

Use open-source software if you are worried about back-doors.

To actually require that everything be signed by one of these,
and actually try to enforce it with filtering would totally
overwhelm the routers.

It's not a question of soft totalitarian, it's a question of software,
and how much slower things get when you can't just switch the packets
but have to do some really complex calculations on them all.

Add to that the fact that tourists and visiting businesspeople need to
access the Internet too. Deny them that and they'll stop coming.

[PoliticAverse]

50. Just like Social Security numbers are only for government use, right? n/t

[LawnKorn]

64. You won't have to use it. - Really?

Just like the Government told us pinpoint cell phone locators would only be used for emergencies like calls to 911.

[AndyTiedye]

121. GPS is Built Into the Phone. You Have Control over Certificates and Keypairs in Your Browser

This certificate wouldn't even be in your browser unless you put it there,
and even then you can control what certificate is presented (if any) when you make an SSL connection,
and which certificates you trust from the server.
(In Firefox, go to "Preferences", "Advanced", "Encryption", and "View Certificates")

Same goes for email.

If you are worried about funny business in the code, run Firefox and Mozilla,
which are open-source.

[LawnKorn]

139. The funny business I'm worried about is identification being required to log on to the Internet

Once the Government gets its foot in the door, the average user can kiss anonymous internet use goodbye. The next logical step is to require positive identification just to get onto an internet gateway server. No unique identification number; No access to the World Wide Web.

If you know anybody who uses the Navy's NMCI network, ask them about how every action by a user on the network is tracked. The Government knows how to do it to the Navy, they can sure as shootin' extend it to the rest of us.

[AndyTiedye]

146. That is Unworkable. Visitors from Overseas Would Not Have One

If businessmen visiting the US were cut off from the Internet while here, they would stop doing business here altogether.
Lots of tourists would stop coming too. Everyone wants their Internet these days.

That would never fly.

[LawnKorn]

152. Unique identification number issued with visa

Without visa, a person is in the country illegally.

[AndyTiedye]

155. Most European Countries, Canada, Mexico & Singapore are Exempt from Visa Requirements

The bulk of visitors to the USA come from countries that have visa waiver programs with the US
so that no visa is required. This isn't just a "number" either. It would need to be issued
on some kind of smart card.

[LawnKorn]

156. Okay, you've got me convinced - the Government is not interested in what people do on the Internet

[AndyTiedye]

160. The Government has Subpoena Power

If the government is interested in what you or I are doing on the Internet,
they can find out who we are. So can a private corporation, if they claim
we are violating some copyright of theirs. All they need is a subpoena.

Pervasive use of SSL, such as would likely accompany the deployment of this,
would actually make the snoopers' jobs a lot more difficult. Most email, etc.
still travels the network unencrypted.

[No Elephants]

182. So? let them get a damned subpoena for "probable cause" then.

At least a judge has to intervene.

[AndyTiedye]

213. So What Would Change Then?

Login credentials, whatever they are, are not displayed to the public.
Someone would need a subpoena to obtain them too.

[No Elephants]

179. Unless their countries follow Obama's lead. Or some private entity starts issuing them, as with

credit reports. t

[iamtechus]

93. Which can be cross-referenced to my IP address etc. (nt)

[AndyTiedye]

116. If You Have a Static IP Address, That is Easy to Look Up Anyway

If not, then they'd still have to get your ISP to give up the information, same as now.

[No Elephants]

183. you don't have to have a static IP address, though.

[villager]

96. the way they swore we wouldn't have to use our Social Security #'s for ID?

n/t

[WinkyDink]

106. You'd better hope no-one reads your income-tax forms on-line.

[AndyTiedye]

118. This Might Help Prevent That Sort of Thing

If someone is reading your income tax forms online, currently they would have to have fraudulently obtained the kind of access that IRS employees have.

If in the future, citizens are permitted to view their own tax form submissions, someone could also do so by impersonating the citizen.

To prevent this sort of thing, it is vitally important that strong authentication be used for access to such systems.

Digital certificates are part of a state-of-the-art system of strong authentication.

[krabigirl]

129. Lol,sure. I wouldn't mind living in that fantasy world.

[AndyTiedye]

158. What Do You Think This Will Let Them Do That They Can't Do Already?

They can already find out who you are by subpoenaing your ISP.

You think that they could require that everything sent on the Internet be signed?
How would they enforce that? The backbone routers couldn't do it, they are designed to switch packets in hardware,
which they can't if they are forced to do signature verifications on everything.

This also begs the question of forced by whom.

Who in Congress would vote for such a thing? The Teabaggers probably think it's the mark of the Beast or something.
Doesn't sound like too many Democrats would vote for it either.

[No Elephants]

184. Only if you have a static ISP ---AND a judge grants the subpoena on probable cause.

[AndyTiedye]

210. They Can Track a Dynamic IP with the DHCP Logs

As you pointed out, that requires a subpoena.

So would getting access to the customers' login records.

You seem to think that websites such as this one would be forced
to authenticate all users with this, and to display the information
on every post.

That would require legislation that no Congress of either party would pass
and that the courts would throw out as unconstitutional if they did.

Congress also has no jurisdiction over foreign websites
(and foreigners would not have digital IDs issued by the US government).

It would be completely unenforceable in any case.

[Downwinder]

13. Prescription for a black market. Alternate DNS, unlisted servers.

Like pirate radio.

[OKNancy]

14. do people actually read the article?

or is everything twisted to fit the "we hate Obama" administration.
----
Details about the "trusted identity" project are unusually scarce. Last year's announcement referenced a possible forthcoming smart card or digital certificate that would prove that online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions.

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

[Downwinder]

16. The same way I don't have to have a driver's license if I don't drive.

Pretty soon I can't vote if I don't have a license.

How long would it be before they required sites like DU to collect IDs.

I can't walk down the sidewalk with getting IDed.

[regnaD kciN]

24. Obviously, you just answered OKNancy's question with a big fat "NO"...

:eyes:

[liberation]

25. I think he was agreeing with you guys

But with sarcasm being the lowest for of wit and all....

[Downwinder]

30. explain to me the last time Government put a regulation into effect without

expanding or extending it.

[polmaven]

53. A big fat NO to question #1,

with a resounding YES to #2. Amazing, isn't it?

[EFerrari]

83. LOL. No, Downwinder is drawing the correction conclusion.

This is one of those "voluntary" programs that we're assured won't change anything and won't put us at risk of still less privacy -- until two minutes after it goes into effect.

[polmaven]

86. I disagree...

This is simply another "Obama is deliberately trying to ruin us" meme.

[EFerrari]

99. So, you think people would be okay with this if Bush did it?

[polmaven]

100. Actually, yes, I do.

n/t

[EFerrari]

101. I don't see how anyone who identifies as a progressive could be.

This is yet another impingement on our civil liberties being set up by NSA et al.

[polmaven]

102. Well, we shall simply

have to agree to disagree on this one.

[benEzra]

115. Bush certainly WANTED to...

but unfortunately it seems that a lot of progressives are OK with all of Bush's Surveillance Nation policies as long as a Dem implements them. Suspension of civil rights based on secret blacklists, targeted assassination of U.S. citizens, national ID, warrantless surveillance of everyone, extreme TSA policies, whatever.

[No Elephants]

202. Bingo!

[I Have A Dream]

149. Right, and it seems as though we're supposed to feel better...

because private industry would be implementing and controlling it. We saw how much we could trust the separation of private industry and the government with what happened clandestinely between the telecommunication companies and the government during the Bush years (and almost certainly now as well). :(

By the way, to anyone reading this, I am not an "Obama hater". However, I have the right to express my extreme disappointment when things like this are proposed under an administration that I felt I could trust. I was so looking forward to finally being able to breathe again after 8 years of the near-constant hypervigilance that was required under the Bush administration. When I read about things like this, it feels like a physical kick to my stomach.

:(

[EFerrari]

81. Did you read the article?

[No Elephants]

185. Please see Reply 171.

[Ter]

206. The government has no business even mentioning the word internet

It's not for them. I so understand why people become Libertarians.

[eilen]

28. Because we have learned from experience not to trust the government

Like how you have to write your SSN everywhere that matters? It was never supposed to be used for ID.

[AndyTiedye]

162. That is the Problem that This is Trying to Solve

A Social Security number can simply be copied.

If the transaction uses a digital signature instead of a social security number,
it cannot be copied and used somewhere else, because the signature is based on a
hash of the transaction itself, so verification would fail.

To merely present the serial number off of someone else's digital certificate
is no proof on anything whatsoever.

[No Elephants]

181. Not really.

"These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions."

1/ We are not giving our SS# to online vendors now, only credit card numbers. You give your SSN to banks, credit card companies, and the like when you first start dealing with them, in person or by mail.

2/ What on earth is so secure about offering these numbers to online vendors? Vendors' info gets hacked all the time. millions of credit card numbers, with names and addresses, are floating around because of vendors.

3/ What is to prevent even further expansion of use of these ID's, as use of SS ##s was expanded?


4/ How do you know this program is designed to addressing lack of secure SS ##s?

[Warren Stupidity]

61. And you accepted that?

"Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said."

1) you will have to get a 'credential' shortly after you don't.
2) of course the database won't consist of a single centralized database, instead many such databases will exist.
3) and don't worry, citibank will be monetizing the whole scam.

[Agony]

68. Seriously, right? "the tide goes in , the tide goes out"

TTGI,TTGO or something like that

[ChairmanAgnostic]

75. I cannot believe that any liberal would think this is good

What makes it worse is that a democrat in office is doing it to us.

[enlightenment]

73. I did - and I didn't see anything in it that gave me warm fuzzies

about this proposed program. I suppose if one is naive enough to believe that something like this would not serve as a stepping stone to a more intrusive policy then it sounds peachy.

Using a phrase like 'anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet' is classic weasel-wording . . . it will 'remain possible' how? Under what circumstances? Why does it move from a given to simply a 'possibility'?

Anytime an official mouthpiece baldly states that 'there's no chance' of something, you can be pretty much assured there certainly IS a chance - and a plan for it . . . perhaps most appallingly, this one seems to be a private sector operation.

Why are these people suggesting that individuals need 'trusted identities'? The problem currently is that people cannot reliably trust the 'identity' of the websites with which they interact, not the other way around. I have to provide multiple layers of identification for most of the financial transactions I make on the 'Net - certainly for banking and the like, but I have no real assurance that my bank website hasn't been hacked in some fashion when I visit it. I'd prefer that those websites give me their digital ID before I give them my personal details.

[AndyTiedye]

138. They Do

I'd prefer that those websites give me their digital ID before I give them my personal details.

They do. That's how SSL works. If the certificate does not match the host or is not signed by a root certificate that you trust,
you will get a pop-up.

The following applies to Firefox:

You can look at the server certificate for an existing SSL connection by clicking on the lock icon in the lower right corner.


You can control which certificates you trust by:

Preferences -> Advanced -> Encryption -> View Certificates

[Boudica the Lyoness]

79. I think it might have something to do with

the US government feeling our genitals and breasts...looking down the front of our underwear..forcefully feeling up our young children and babies...taking x-ray pictures of our naked bodies. It's like...FUCK what are they going to do next?

I don't trust them and I don't care who's in the fucking White House.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

82. Not to mention...

letting people die and suffer because of unaffordable healthcare costs.

If they really cared about our well being then why didn't Obama make healthcare affordable?

People don't know what's coming next - Living in the good old USA is like living in a war zone.

[w4rma]

163. I honestly don't care how the article spins this bullcrap. (nt)

[No Elephants]

180. Please see Reply 171. Also, how something starts is not necessarily how it remains. See all the

posts on this thread about SS ##s.


Btw, I do not find it comforting that details of a government project of this nature are "unusually scarce," even though news of it appeared in the press a year ago. (A year ago, when almost nothing but health care reform was getting done!)

Is this "jobs, jobs, jobs?" If not, why is spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money so I don't have to worry about forgetting my password such a government priority?

Vendors already have workarounds for this, like giving you hints you designed yourself when you first signed up, and/or emailing you your password, so, yes, you bet I have questions.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dreamnightwind]

19. I dunno

Sounds ok to me. It's more like getting verified with Paypal or something like that, I think. Unless you're doing something requiring personal authentication just don't use it. Of course it could be adopted by every site on the net, requiring you to use it all the time, but I don't think so, I think it's just to facilitate things like e-commerce. Haven't read the article yet, though, just the excerpt in the OP.

And I'm all over Obama as much as anyone, I just don"t see it in this case.

[No Elephants]

186. Please see Replies 171 and 174, for starters--and everything isn't about Obama.

[Joanne98]

17. TERRIBLE IDEA!

[James48]

18. Whoever thought this one up needs to be fired.

NO Fu$#@ing WAY.

[conspirator]

20. An era of FASCISM is coming. And it's gonna be ugly n/t

[regnaD kciN]

21. Interesting how the story points out this will "please privacy and civil liberties groups"...

...and yet everyone here skates right over the information (including the fact that it would not be an "ID card" system) in the article in a rush to condemn Obama yet again. :eyes:

All I know is that Secretary Locke announced this and his department will be heading it up. From his time as Governor, King County Executive, and Democratic Party leader here, I can say with some certainty that, if he's been given this responsibility, the result won't be a "Big Brother" system, no matter how many knees jerk here.

[Downwinder]

29. Where is the need? n/t

[Caretha]

34. Exactly what I was thinking

what is the purpose? I see none.

[Recursion]

36. Where is the need for my bank's website to know it's really me?

Are you seriously asking that?

[Downwinder]

37. Are you saying that they do not know you now?

If so better change banks.

[Recursion]

39. Like all sysadmins, I cringed at that question

This is why 700,000 identity thefts happen every year...

[Downwinder]

43. If you issue a certificate, it is as good as if someone else issues one.

If the machine grows legs, it does not matter who issues the certificate. On the other hand a common certificate allows access to multiple locations and is less secure.

[Recursion]

46. If your point is that all self-managed keys would be better, I definitely agree

But I don't know of any bank that issues or accepts client certificates. A framework that involves client certificates is going to be better than what we have now, even if still sub-optimal. At least it's no longer pessimal.

[No Elephants]

188. How will this stop ID theft? Please see Reply 181,

[Bluebear]

57. .

[No Elephants]

190. Agree. Pls. see Reply 180. I'm guessing credit card companies are lobbying for this, bc

they supposedly protect cardholders against fraudulent use of cards.

[No Elephants]

187. How did the author of the article know what will please those groups?

And when did CNET become an infallibe foreteller of the future?


And everything isn't about Obama, ffs.

[liberation]

23. We all must make our sacrifices in the war against kiddie porn...

Will someone think of the children?????

[mikehiggins]

49. kiddie porn has been an issue since I worked for the Post Office

in 1967, and for many years before that. As long as there is money to be made on anything there will be people providing it. Using Internet controls to fight it is just as effective as opening up all those unmarked brown envelopes did way back then.

That being said, I'm fairly confident that this topic was among the last to be discussed when this whole initiative was being bandied about. Politicians usually care about kiddie porn during years when there are elections. Using this stuff for identifying potential supporters/opponents is, IMHO, more likely what they have in mind.

[No Elephants]

189. How is thinking of the children inconsistent with kiddie porn?

[eilen]

31. Considering that there are plenty of more important things

the Obama admin should be working on. The Commerce Dept is being given this authority, the only reason the article and government presumes it will make security and privacy peoples happy is because it has not been given to Dept. Homeland Security or National Intelligence Agency. This is an assumption made in the article with no substantiation.

They are privatizing this project as well-- awarding it to some Bozo who make big contributions.

As one of the commenters in the article states-- another "solution" looking for a problem.

How about some fracking jobs?

[BlueJac]

32. At last the change we can believe in!

WTF....can this man just quit with the rightwing ideas.

[Enthusiast]

60. Those 'right wing' ideas?

They will be tagged as 'left wing' ideas in the future. TPTB will see to that.

[Recursion]

33. Wow: almost none of you understand what this is

And yet it's widely condemned. I used to think of that as conservative behavior. Lately I'm changing my mind.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

84. I think people understand it just fine, including the part where

the program is nominally in Commerce but actually with NSA.

[No Elephants]

193. Good one!

Bear in mind though that even copyright violation is also under Homeland Security or some such.

Apparently any dollar a business person may lose is a matter of national security nowadays. Bill of Rights? Not so much.

[WinkyDink]

107. What part about "heard this assurance before" is difficult to grasp?

[boppers]

132. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Solution:
BURN THE WITCH!

[No Elephants]

192. LOL!

[No Elephants]

191. Why do you assume people who have a view different from yours do not understand this?

You are looking at one part of the picture and those who disagree with you are looking at potential for abuse.

FYI, we are not supposed to imply other DUers are conservative (esp., i might add, in an instance where it seems to be board liberals with whom you differ). If it were not for that rule, who knows what people would post about various posts and posters--even your own posts?

[Recursion]

209. I don't. But I see people complaining about things that don't apply to this initiative

So I can only conclude they don't know what this is.

[NeoGreen]

38. With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans... (n/t)

[readmoreoften]

117. +1

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

67. The homeless and jobless just aren't as interesting to Obama ....

this looks like more COINTEL from the White House -- !!

[canoeist52]

45. Wasn't this tried years ago?

.net frameworks? Full of holes making our identities LESS safe?

[Recursion]

48. Clinton had pushed for something like this

The standards got promulgated and nobody cared. Unfortunately I expect a similar reception here.

[No Elephants]

196. You seem to have missed the LESS SAFE part of canoeist's post, despite all cap/

[Renew Deal]

51. It sounds like we ARE talking about a national ID card.

Controlled by the government. Who would administer such a thing? And if multiple companies are administering this, then I'm sure it will somehow fragment.

[Paper Roses]

52. Sounds like just one more step toward national ID.

Never thought I'd see the day. Sad

[Thav]

54. 20 minutes after this gets implemented

someone finds a way to circumvent, spoof, duplicate, steal, hack, or otherwise invalidate this system.

I'd like to reiterate, the only secure computer is one that is powered off, disconnected, locked in a closet, with no data on it.

[TK421]

94. you nailed it

[Enthusiast]

55. Millions of people across lines of every

political persuasion will eye this with extreme suspicion.

[leveymg]

56. "Identity ecosystem"? Don't worry, we're just nice environmentalists, not jackbooted Storm Troopers

We're here to help you! Trust us and we'll trust you, citizen.

[Vinca]

58. Ouch! My jaw just hit the keyboard.

WHAT????????????

[Hubert Flottz]

62. Your Gubmint Moderator...

Big Brother

[TomClash]

66. This simply makes it easier

to target . . . everybody.

Contrary to the article, this would appear to end any semblance of internet anonymity. Big Brother is watching.

[NeoConsSuck]

69. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups

I'll wait for their verdict before I listen to the 'Obama can do no wrong' groupies.

My $10 thinks the privacy and civil liberty groups are going to have a big problem with this proposal.

[wakemewhenitsover]

92. When I read that line about pleasing privacy and civil liberties groups...

I thought it must be :sarcasm: -- but now I see it was just good old-fashioned brainwashing.

[No Elephants]

195. Where do you suppose the author of the article got that gem? No

indication he contacted any reps of civil liberties groups or did anything but cover the presentation Locke and Schmidt made.

Oh, wait.....

[No Elephants]

194. Agree--but, whether they're pleased or appalled. I will think for myself.

[Cutatious]

72. A beautiful idea...we can name the new system

IPV666 and just use our SS number for our ID.

Cha cha cha changes.

[LawnKorn]

76. Soon everyone using a Bit Torrent to exchange binary files will be identified. n/t

[Hayabusa]

142. Exactly!

This is precisely the reason why this thing is going to happen.

No, that's not sarcasm.

[IDemo]

77. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge,"

:argh: :rofl:

[BuelahWitch]

97. Oh no, NO centralized database AT ALL

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705363940/Utahs-15-billion-cyber-security-center-under-way.html

Except in Utah where they will get good little compliant Mormons to spy on us...

[AndyTiedye]

125. Carnivore Knows Who You Are Already

[WinkyDink]

108. In fact, we didn't even mention the war!

[Maineman]

78. I think it is for them, not us

It sounds to me like an aid to law enforcement, to help track and prosecute people, including those who leak embarrassing info, I presume. Maybe they will be able to track the activities of bank robbers, the ones in the executive suits of the big banks. That might make it worth doing.

[LawnKorn]

80. Mr. Maineman, we have a question about your actions during the week of January 2nd

Our records show you read your email in Seattle on Monday the 3rd and then posted to a political form from Atlanta on the 5th.

Just what was you reason for being in Seattle Mr. Maineman and why the sudden trip to Georgia?

[Autumn]

109. They know the activities of " bank robbers,

the ones in the executive suits of the big banks." They are well protected and taken care of by "our" government. That's not who they are after.

[Gregorian]

88. JUST AS USEFUL AS THE DMV.

In other words, a way of creating useless jobs. And anyone who tries to argue that the DMV is useful has to undergo my cynical gaze.

[No Elephants]

198. Far more potential for harm than the DMV.

[kryckis]

90. For reference, where I live

most who conduct financial transactions online, for example paying bills and other sensitive business, use an identity card of sort. You put it in a small card reader (provided by the bank) and type your code. It is thus impossible for someone who doesn't possess my card and code to login to my bank account or pretend to be me in contact with the government (financial aid, tax filing etc).

I think it's quite obvious reading from this article that this type of thing is what they have in mind.

[villager]

91. This is in a different country? Have the online IDs ever been abused there?

Here in the U.S., they "promised" that social security #'s would never be used as ID's.

We've seen how that turned out.

[kryckis]

95. Sweden

Abused how?

We've had online bank ID's for a long time but it's only in recent years that security has been stepped up with a card reader as well.

I haven't experienced any problems with this at all. In fact, I would never use my bank's online service if there wasn't any identification software.

[villager]

98. well, here in America, numbers for Social Security and Drivers Licenses

...have been used in more and more pervasive ways, on job applications, for credit tracking, school applications, etc., etc.

One has little faith that data-collected usage of our coming "cyber IDs" will be restricted.

[AndyTiedye]

126. Fewer Mistakes and Less Fraud

This wouldn't let them do anything they aren't doing already.

There might be fewer instances of your credit being f'ed up
because someone else was using your social security number
or had the same name.

Someone can't just "use" your digital ID. All it contains is
some of the information necessary to verify a digital signature
(and it is, itself, signed to prevent tampering).

They need to sign something with the corresponding private key.
You don't give anyone else your private key, ever.

[No Elephants]

197. Obvious? Really? What did the article say about a card reader?

If you and your bank have a system, no need for government involvement.

one card reader and/or one ID for all online transactions. What could possibly go wrong?

[AndyTiedye]

211. Do You Really Think the Folks in Washington Want to Put the Credit Card Companies Out of Business???

Considering how nice the folks in DC are to banks and other financial institutions,
do you really think the government is planning to put the credit card companies out of business?

Not gonna happen!

[BrklynLiberal]

104. Is it Fascism Yet??

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt

<snip>

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

[WinkyDink]

105. I'm SURE it's to help us not have to remember ALL those passwords of ours! NOT for any DATA-BASE!

Nooooooooooooooooooo. We just want you to be able to conduct COMMERCE on-line in a new and improved stream-lined easy-peasy ONE-UNIQUE-PASSWORD-PER-CITIZEN WAY. Not that we'd know what you buy or when or from whom, or anything. Or what political sites you visit with your now-required new and improved ONE-UNIQUE-PASSWORD-PER-CITIZEN. Think of it as your Internet Social Security Number, except you can BUY BUY BUY with it, and isn't that what keeps America great?

Now, what's your Twitter name again? Not that we can't get it from Zuckerberg, mind you. But let's pretend.

This screed brought to you by John the Savage.

[high density]

111. Enhancing privacy with an ID!! Yes... yes that is right

I am quite happy with memorizing dozens of passwords. I do not need the government between me and the websites I visit. Thank you.

[woo me with science]

127. [phone] nt

[christx30]

136. "Enhancing privacy with an ID!!"

like enhancing brain power with a bat to the head? lol
or enhancing your sex life with castration? or enhancing your spending power by laying you off.

yeah. Sounds like a great enhancment. I have tons of passwords. Looking forward to keeping them.
This needs to be fought.

edited to add one more:

"voting for republicans to enhance our lives!"

[somone]

112. What a progressive idea!

An "identity ecosystem" to justify the ever-expanding police state :sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

199. Seems "progressive" to me, but I make a huge distinction between "progressive" and "liberal,."

Marshall--co-founded the DLC, signed the 2003 PNAC memo, heads the Progressive Policy Institute.

[reggie the dog]

113. how can they make me have an american internet id

if i no longer live in the usa???? i live in france. how will they know if i have an internet id or not????

[AndyTiedye]

130. The USA is Generally Better About Internet Privacy than France

[reggie the dog]

208. how?

they both spy illegally am pretty sure...

[toddaa]

120. This is, hands down, the dumbest idea ever

I'm sure the folks over at blackhat.com are laughing their asses off over this one.

[Gormy Cuss]

124. "No chance that a centralized database will emerge...."

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

Yeah right. There will be dozens of proprietary centralized databases with weak privacy controls and there will be no viable option to avoid using the internet ID online --- the "option" will be use it or you won't be able to do financial transactions online.

[AndyTiedye]

131. It is Just a Certificate and Key. You Choose When and Where to Use It

In Firefox:

Preferences -> Advanced -> Encryption -> View Certificates

[Gormy Cuss]

137. Really? Your financial institution can't require the use as part of the TOS?

I use keys now. They aren't portable. The key works only for that one vendor.

[AndyTiedye]

143. You Don't Get to be Anonymous With Your Bank Anyway

A financial institution could set up their online access that way, and it would be your choice to use it or not.
Your bank already knows who you are. They are required to by law. I don't think we are giving up anything here,
and we may gain some protection against fraud and identity theft.

That still would not make you use it for anything that you currently do more or less anonymously on the net.

They could not do so even if they wanted to. The kind of filtering that would require would be so compute-intensive
that it would totally overwhelm servers and routers.

[Gormy Cuss]

148. Who said anything about anonymity within the financial institution?

Right now the key is specific to the institution. It's not a universal identifier.
As for gaining protection against fraud, having unique keys at each bank enhances security since a thief who gained access to the key would only be able to attempt fraud at one institution. A portable, personal key would act more like an SSN and that would make it easier for the fraud to be wider spread quickly and more persistent. With a unique key, a thief could attack your Wells Fargo accounts. With a portable key, the thief could go after EVERY bank and brokerage account in your name.

[krabigirl]

128. Horrible...just horrible.

[subterranean]

133. Who will profit from this?

A quote in the article said that they will "need the private sector to lead the implementation" of the Internet ID. That makes me wonder if there's a company (or companies) pushing for it behind the scenes. All in the interest of enhancing privacy, of course.

[high density]

135. This sort of thing is already being done

Website operators can allow users to log in with their credentials for Facebook, Yahoo, Google, etc. I don't see why we need the government to get involved here.

http://openid.net/get-an-openid/

[sarcasmo]

140. Way to much government control now, Internet ID no thanks big brother.

[Vidar]

141. It's to be expected. Obama and the teabaggers are paid for by the same

fricking corporations.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

144. Whats next? Barcodes on the back of the neck or just a Chip?

[No Elephants]

200. Self delete-dupe

[No Elephants]

201. Forehead or hand.

kjv Revelation 13:


16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.



j/k (--or am I?)

[I Have A Dream]

147. Are you friggin' kidding me?!!

:wtf:

[williesgirl]

150. One more potential for big brother to watch our every move. Sucks big time to me.

[Catherina]

151. To hell with him. n/t

[Edweird]

154. Wow. He's going to end up making * look like a commie pinko.

[lovuian]

159. why just Americans why not other countries

:argh:

[w4rma]

161. I hate to say it, but as of now I think I'd prefer Bush in the White House. (nt)

[AndyTiedye]

165. I Can't Bear to See a Fellow Ham So Upset

This won't let the government do anything they cannot already do.
If they want to know who you are, they subpoena your ISP.
That horse left the barn some time ago. Not sure it was ever actually IN the barn.

This is an initiative to replace a reliance on easily copyable numbers
such as social security numbers with digital signatures.

Yes, social security numbers ARE being used in ways they were never intended.
That is why we need something new. Something a bit more resistant to fraud.
Identity theft is rampant.

[ProSense]

166. More:

<...>

Civil libertarians have expressed concern that the system may not protect privacy as well as the government is promising.

“If the concept were implemented in a perfect way it would be very good,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst for privacy and technology at the New York-based American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s a convenience. But having a single point of failure may not be good for protecting privacy. The devil’s really in the details.” He said the ACLU would “vehemently oppose” anything that resembled a national ID card.

Aaron Brauer-Rieke, a fellow at the Center for Democracy & Technology in Washington, a civil liberties group, said it was important that the system would be operated by private companies, not the government. He said he was concerned about how the data on consumer online transactions would be used.

“New identity systems will allow moving from one site to another with less friction and open up data flows, but might also enable new kinds of targeted advertising,” he said. “We have to make sure privacy doesn’t get lost in this.”

link

[BlueIris]

167. Good luck with that, Mr. President.

If you honestly think people will stand for that...well, I think you'll be surprised.

[bluestateguy]

168. Sounds like bullshit to me

Anonymous sources, speculation and a lot of hypotheticals.

It's your typical "Obama is considering thinking about maybe possibly doing......." story.

[No Elephants]

170. Yeah, not as though any of those stories ever turn out to be 100% right.

:sarcasm:

I remember thread after thread in LBN about things like Obama being willing to forego a public option or being willing to compromise on tax cuts for the rich being pooh poohed solely because of anonymous sources and (alleged) lack of specificity.

Reality is, WH and other knowledgeable sources deliberately leak stories on condition of anonynmity. Not saying every such story is true. However, if a reputable publisher claims to have heard from a WH official, I would not dismiss the story out of hand for that reason, either.

That said, this particular story DOES name names and give specifics.

[panzerfaust]

173. Land of the Free

[No Elephants]

203. How could anything possibly go wrong?

[Jamastiene]

204. I call dibs on Rusty Shackleford and Jamastiene as usernames.

Yes, I want them both. I don't want to use my precious homemade user name elsewhere, not if I don't want to. So, I'll be Rusty Shackleford, Dale Gribble's alter ego, elsewhere.

I call dibs on both user names. :evilgrin:

[Ter]

205. The hell with that

Does he need Congress's approval first?