http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/08/report-obama-administration-plans-create-internet-id-americans/?.cmpid=cmty_other_C
President Obama is putting plans in motion to give the Commerse Department authority to create an internet ID for all Americans a White House official told CNET.com.
White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt told the website it is "the absolute perfect spot in the US government to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" to the internet.
The National Security for Trusted identities in Cyberspace is currently being drafted by the Obama administration and will be released by the president in a few months.
"We are not talking about a national ID card. We are 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," Commerse Secretary Gary Looks said at an event Friday at the Stanford Institute by Economic Policy Research, according to CNET.com.
Locks added that the Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project.
The move has raised eyebrows about privacy issues.
"The government cannot create that identity infrastructure," Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology told the website. "If I tried to, I would not be trusted."
Schmidt stresses that anonymity will remain on the internet, saying there is no chance that "a centralized database will emerge."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It all sound harmless to me....unless you have something to hide from Big Brother. So do you have anything to worry about? Hmmm? ðŸ˜
Originally posted by whodeyThe FCC ruling was irrelevant to this.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the recent ruling by the FCC to regulate the internet was necessary for such a move as this or could they have done this independently of the recent FCC ruling?
Originally posted by whodeyI feel it would be a good idea to actually await an actual proposal with full details before making up my mind. I don't have the luxury you do of simply saying "Obama's administration is proposing it; therefore, it must be a step toward taking away all our freedoms".
How do you feel about the internet ID?
Originally posted by whodeyIt doesn't look like a great idea to me. Eliminating the necessity to memorize many passwords for what? To force people into the less secure idea of having ONE password to access everything?
How do you feel about the internet ID?
There is a reason why there is the advice to have many passwords.
I also don't think it's a good idea to have the government (or anyone else) know your password. Usually websites themselves can't tell you what your password is, they can only have an automated system send it to you or reset it.
I don't know what they intend here but from just the details here I don't think it's a great idea.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell if you could provide me with a sensable reason for doing such a thing I may change my mind.
I feel it would be a good idea to actually await an actual proposal with full details before making up my mind. I don't have the luxury you do of simply saying "Obama's administration is proposing it; therefore, it must be a step toward taking away all our freedoms".
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not sure what Obama is planning but here they have a thing called DigID, basically it's one internet identity for government services. It's pretty convenient because things that previously took filling in forms and sending them by mail can now be done with a few clicks.
How do you feel about the internet ID?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere's a little more detail here but it's still pretty vague:
I'm not sure what Obama is planning but here they have a thing called DigID, basically it's one internet identity for government services. It's pretty convenient because things that previously took filling in forms and sending them by mail can now be done with a few clicks.
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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html
Again, a more specific proposal is supposed to be made in the next few months. I'll wait to see what it contains before deciding whether it's a good idea or not.
Originally posted by no1marauderProving who they say they are? I think you may have hit it on the head. They want confirmation that what the things you do on the internet can be indisputably attached to your name. It has NOTHING to do with not wanting to memorize a myriad of passwords. All it is is an information tracking scheme.
[b]There's a little more detail here but it's still pretty vague:
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.
Originally posted by whodeyIs that what the little voices tell you?
Proving who they say they are? I think you may have hit it on the head. They want confirmation that what the things you do on the internet can be indisputably attached to your name. It has NOTHING to do with not wanting to memorize a myriad of passwords. All it is is an information tracking scheme.
Originally posted by whodeyPredictable hysterical nonsense out of you.
Proving who they say they are? I think you may have hit it on the head. They want confirmation that what the things you do on the internet can be indisputably attached to your name. It has NOTHING to do with not wanting to memorize a myriad of passwords. All it is is an information tracking scheme.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnything the government does to expand its power can be spun to be to "protect us". In fact, the left went up in arms over the Patriot Act. The only reason they were up in arms I believe is that "W" was the instigator. Were they listening to little voices as well you think?
Is that what the little voices tell you?
To be honest, there is no such thing a safety certainty, so this means that there are a possible infinate number of such proposals that the government could make. Its like saying there is such a thing as safe sex because there isn't. Such activity carries with it inherent risks. The question becomes, how much of our freedoms should be surrender in order to feel "safer". Can government continue to expand when they can't seem to be able to afford what they are already legally obligated to do? Why do they seek more government expansion?
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe you should grab a gun and shoot one of those statists.
Anything the government does to expand its power can be spun to be to "protect us". In fact, the left went up in arms over the Patriot Act. The only reason they were up in arms I believe is that "W" was the instigator. Were they listening to little voices as well you think?
To be honest, there is no such thing a safety certainty, so this means that ther ...[text shortened]... t they are already legally obligated to do? Why do they seek more government expansion?