Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Government Internet ID Proposal

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the commence-the-battle-royale dept.

Privacy 260

An anonymous reader writes "Is it the beginning of government tracking? An expert on electronic privacy walks through the possibilities and perils of a national online security system run, in part, by the US Department of Homeland Security."

cancel ×

260 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dupe (0)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882192)

I'm sure this story has been posted many times over the last few months?

Example:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/04/17/1747215/White-House-Releases-Trusted-Internet-ID-Plan [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe -- yes. Good to repeat often. (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882394)

Make sure nobody misses this one.

Re:Dupe -- yes. Good to repeat often. (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882856)

More importantly, make sure they read AT LEAST THIS FAR:

The government has set out principles — chief among them “choice, efficiency, security and privacy” — more than mechanics. But the basic idea is that you could have your offline identity verified online by a company of your choosing. That company would then provide you with a single credential you could then present (when you don’t want to be anonymous online) to Amazon, or VA.gov, instead of having to re-establish that you are who you say you are with every online transaction.
The device carrying your credential — a flash drive, a cellphone, a smart card of some kind — would authenticate itself, rather than referring Amazon to the company that vouches for you. Amazon would know the buyer was secure, and the credential would know it was communicating with a bookseller, but the authentication provider would never learn that you just bought Bob Woodward’s new book. In this way, all of the parties involved would never freely communicate with each other, preventing precisely the web of information that you probably don’t want anyone — private company or government agency — to track.

In short it is a strictly voluntary program of obtaining authentication credentials which only YOU say what you share with each. Like your PGP signature with a somewhat more reliable web of trust than some guy in Slovenia that signed your key.

Seriously, you can tell the author simply skimmed, and never read the actual government release on this idea, which can be found in pdf form here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf [whitehouse.gov]

The biggest problem I see is the mentioned "Mission Creep", where such an ID becomes mandatory in order to purchase anything on line. I could easily see that happening at the insistence of credit card companies.

Re:Dupe -- yes. Good to repeat often. (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882980)

That makes me feel better since the government never suffers from scope creep.

Re:Dupe -- yes. Good to repeat often. (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882984)

In short it is a strictly voluntary program of obtaining authentication credentials which only YOU and identity thieves say what you share with each.

FTFY.

Re:Dupe -- yes. Good to repeat often. (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883084)

Its safer than credit cards.

You can dumpster dive all you want, but you still can't access my accounts without my digital credentials stored on my phone. And Even if you steal my cell phone with my credentials on it, you can't use them because they are encrypted and password protected on the phone.

Re:Dupe -- yes. Good to repeat often. (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883032)

Eventually, however, the transaction relates to a buyer at an IPv6 address. As most IPv6 addresses aren't behind a NAT, they can be eventually profiled as to who they are.

And since those carrying an iPhone to make the purchase have their GPS tracked, we know where they are for large parts of the day. Let's say that the phone location between 10pm and 6am is likely where they live. Oh, let's crossref that to a Google map to find out what their apartment looks like. Gosh, see where else they go? Neat, huh?

I'm not sure DHS need to do much of anything. Between IPv6 and phone-home-with-GPS data, we're all tracked in the US (and other parts of the planet) now.

Between this and Apple's location tracking... (4, Funny)

Itesh (1901146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882198)

we should have absolutely nothing to fear. Remember, this is all for our protection.

Re:Between this and Apple's location tracking... (3, Insightful)

piripiri (1476949) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882324)

Thank god I don't live in the USA.

Re:Between this and Apple's location tracking... (2)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882644)

And that matters how?

I'm Canadian. I shop online, from stores in the US on occasion. My girlfriend does so quite frequently (You'd think she was a centipede the way she buys shoes...).
If/When this "Internet ID" thing comes around, it's going to mean one of two things for us:
A) No ID? No shoppy-shoppy. Please return to your local mall to be price gouged by Canadian retailers who will charge you a 20% premium for no apparent reason even though our dollar is once again stronger than the greenback. PS: Your own government will implement their version of this in 5-10 years.
B) Sign here, here, and here. In blood. Congrats, the USA gubbernmint now has you by the balls, and you have absolutely no rights because you're not even a US citizen!

I am not looking forward to this crap.

Re:Between this and Apple's location tracking... (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882800)

That's fine cause most probably you live in a country that the US could extradite you from due to your online habits. Thank Amerikan Korporate greed for making this nation great (for them, not us).

Re:Between this and Apple's location tracking... (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883008)

Depending on the country, your privacy probably suffered equally egregious breaches years ago.

Not apples to apples (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882782)

A private business doesn't have the special right to employ coercion (meaning physical force) as a business model. Government does have that special right -- in fact, that special right is precisely what defines government and differentiates government from everybody else.

The point is that no private organization could ever cause as much destruction and injustice as government -- it's just not logically possible. Even when government employs coercion (wrongly) on behalf of a private organization, it is government that ultimately holds the key, not the private organization.

I'm not trying to excuse corporations from abuse of privacy -- that's certainly a major problem in today's world. But let's try to keep some perspective: government is infinitely more dangerous than any private organization -- by the very definition of government (see above).

Re:Not apples to apples (1)

Kleen13 (1006327) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882894)

A private business doesn't have the special right to employ coercion (meaning physical force) as a business model. Government does have that special right -- in fact, that special right is precisely what defines government and differentiates government from everybody else.

How does that compare to the private security companies being contracted in Iraq and Afghanistan? Serious question.

Re:Not apples to apples (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883382)

Answer: The private organization only holds the right to employ coercion per government's order. Who said government wouldn't (or couldn't) delegate its dirty work to third parties? The people who control the business of government make the rules. It's their game, not the private contractor's.

Re:Between this and Apple's location tracking... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883042)

You've had a driver's license and Apple's location tracking for some time now.

What has happened to you that the rest of us should fear?

How will this prevent identity theft? (4, Insightful)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882230)

How will this prevent identity theft? Seems to me that it will make it potentially easier to steal someone's identity.

Re:How will this prevent identity theft? (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882568)

than again, Government can track us already. Licences, Credit cards, purchases, and so on. How far are we willing to allow tracking?

Re:How will this prevent identity theft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883144)

than again, Government can track us already. Licences, Credit cards, purchases, and so on. How far are we willing to allow tracking?

I think of government tracking and what is acceptable on par with encryption: When you look to encrypt something, there is a limit on how much computing power is needed to crack it and how long it would take to apply that computing power to the issue. If you are trying to encrypt something no one else has reason to care about without ill intent, ie: session keys for an online bank session - you can use an RSA keypair that can be cracked in 3 days (assuming closing of sessions or renewing keys periodically, just to account for an open browser) - is it going to stop someone with a wiretapping warrant and a government supercomputer? No, but there aren't many of those. In a similar manner - the government *should* have the means to track everything you do - within a similar margin. If you're doing something that has the FBI looking at you - their going to find out where you have been just as they should, but it takes considerable manpower and resources - as it should to prevent some dipshit politician setting up rules engineered around their opposition's lives. The real issue I personally have with tracking is making it too simple for abuse - if it takes a dozen people and days/weeks to find out what I've been doing that abuse isn't likely to happen, both because its too costly, and because more people would have to be for it occurring to begin with.

Re:How will this prevent identity theft? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882588)

How will this prevent identity theft? Seems to me that it will make it potentially easier to steal someone's identity.

I don't think you understand who the government serves. They serve the corps, not us. From the point of view of the corps, they would no longer have any liability for identity theft. Follow the detailed fedgov procedure, the fedgov authenticates them, the corp is not liable for mistakes. Also the fedgov will prosecute for criminal fraud against the fedgov at their expense, rather than the corp paying to prosecute as a civil court thing. That is how it protects against identify theft.

Re:How will this prevent identity theft? (1)

Adam Appel (1991764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882624)

AND harder to fix, since the government will know it's you.

Re:How will this prevent identity theft? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882940)

Any ID you can establish, you can also revoke.

Re:How will this prevent identity theft? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883118)

Any ID you can establish, you can also revoke.

And anyone who controls the PC, often not the person who thinks they control it, can also revoke the ID. Good thing the dominant operating system is so secure.

Re:How will this prevent identity theft? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882962)

The easiest way to keep your identity from being stolen is to not have one.

Re:How will this prevent identity theft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883244)

Indeed.

The government can't do anything right? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882242)

I really like this story when people insinuate that the government is an utter failure at anything it touches. Stolen from Usenet long ago, I believe.

This morning I awoke to my alarm powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Dept. of Energy. I turn on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration predicts the weather to be using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration. I also note that the US is still a sovereign nation, having not been invaded during the night, thanks to the tireless vigilance of the United States Armed Forces.

I then took a shower using clean water provided by the municipal water utility. At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation.

I may also stop to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the local and state building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local Police Department.

Some days we stop to let the kids play in one of the many beautiful parks maintained by the US National Park Service division of the US Department of the Interior.

I then log onto the internet, developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, and post on freerepublic and FOX News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine [or new ID cards] is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882396)

And all it cost you was 40% of everything produced in the entire country! What a deal!

Re:The government can't do anything right? (2)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882448)

you must go to the Jon Kyl School of Statistics

Re:The government can't do anything right? (2)

iggie (183722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882880)

I'm assuming you're talking about the US.
Contrary to the incessant, shrill whining, its more like 30%, which is quite a bit lower than the 7-major-OECD average. For 40% you have to go to the UK. Germany's 45%. And boy, does their economy suck!
Here:
[cbpp.org]

Re:The government can't do anything right? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882572)

And I love telling people who post this story:

1) Just because the government provides those services does not mean they wouldn't exist without the government. If the state provided all food, does that mean that the absence of the state would result in the absence of food? Presumably many people want nice parks, clean water, safe cars, and so on. When people want things, it generates something called "demand" in the economy. Latent demand for a product which doesn't yet exist is the single biggest driver of entrepreneurial innovation and investment. This is how we get, among other things: cars, computers, food, planes, trains, medicine, robots, furniture, music, tools,... Imagine, all those things created simply by some people wanting them, and other people making them and selling... all voluntarily. Who'd a thunk it!

2) It completely ignores the fact that these services were created on stolen wealth (taxation). But alas this is a point that will definitely go over your head since you undoubtedly believe that the state's claim to my income is just.

3) It completely ignores that all state programs force everyone to receive the same service, even if they don't want that service at all, or would rather have a different one. For example if the state were the only producer of food, and it made everyone eat bread and potatoes for breakfast lunch and dinner, you would say, "See, the state can do things right." Nevermind that some people preferred steak, some people wanted to eat more, some wanted to eat less, some wanted to cook their own food, etc.

I could go on, but I'll stop there since I'd imagine your statist eyes are popping out of your head right now at all of this "Fox News Nonsense".

It seems most statists really have only a few arguments, each of which is can be rapidly debunked:

* If you don't like it, leave!
* The world is a safe place to live because of our wise regulatory overlords. (People can't be trusted to decide on their own what might harm them, but those same people can be trusted to regulate millions of other people using the threat of force.)
* Taxation isn't theft because of the social contract. (A contract I have never signed, never seen, and never agreed to.)
* People involved in free, voluntary transactions are exploiting one another [capitalism]. People threatening each other with violence if they don't comply are doing good [statism]. That last one always is the funniest for me.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882620)

Libertarian alert!

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882830)

you make a fuckload of assumptions and leave off the other side of many of your arguments, but i'll just dispute the last line since it "always is the funniest for me."

* People involved in free, voluntary transactions are exploiting one another [capitalism]. People threatening each other with violence if they don't comply are doing good [statism]. That last one always is the funniest for me.

Capitalism: People involved in free, voluntary transactions are exploiting one another - no, in most cases those people are exploiting people in the 3rd world (or whatever PC nomenclature you would like to use) for their resources and labor etc OR exploiting others (eg: mass financial scandal of 2008) for their own gain

Statism: Who is threating what with violence? Where does that enter into it? Are you referring to the police force? so what happens when your non-regulated ass gets his house robbed?

Re:The government can't do anything right? (3, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882832)

(A contract I have never signed, never seen, and never agreed to.)

Cute. I'll refer you back to your own first point:

* If you don't like it, leave!

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883070)

My vote for best post of the day. Congratulations, sir.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883306)

I may be double-wooshing but that wasn't a point he was making, it is the answer he expects from the very people he criticizes, in this case (if you weren't just trying to be funny), that means you. As such you likely made his point rather than dismissed it.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882862)

Call me stupid if you like, but I don't see the problem with the "statist" arguments you post at the end there.

"If you don't like it, leave!" - Well, yes. There is no law stopping you from living in this country, under this government, if you don't like how it is run, you are free to try out somewhere else. Of course, you are also free to stay here and complain about how much it sucks and try to change it.

"The world is a safe place to live because of our wise regulatory overlords." -Safe? No. Safer? Yes imo. government isn't my strong point but last I checked we had a very complex system of checks and balances to make sure it is at least very hard to abuse power, and have access to professionals in several areas. Making that a better idea than leaving the people to make decisions about what processes should be used in making clean water for us to use.

"Taxation isn't theft because of the social contract. (A contract I have never signed, never seen, and never agreed to.)" - Well, alright, fair enough you never got to personally agree to how things are done, but as the first argument states, you can leave if you don't like it or try to change it(you seem to take the latter option, good luck).

"People involved in free, voluntary transactions are exploiting one another [capitalism]. People threatening each other with violence if they don't comply are doing good [statism]. That last one always is the funniest for me." - I just plain don't like how you put this. People involved in free, voluntary transactions are involved in free, voluntary transactions; people exploiting other people by means of abusing a monopoly (just one example, sorry) are exploiting other people by taking advantage of the regulations(or lack thereof). The government doesn't threaten a business with violence(the vast majority of the time, depending on what you count as violence), if they break a regulatory law, they get fined.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883062)

My friend, all the information is available to you online. All you have to do is read.

Your arguments amount to a nice-sounding story -- and not a story you invented, either, but one continually reinforced by the court historians.

The truth, which you don't have to take my word for:

- Regulatory agencies are universally taken over by industry. They benefit industry, bureaucrats, and the politically connected at the expense of everyone else. For more on this, Google "Tom Woods".

- State-created monopolies are no doubt bad, so we're in agreement there. (Ironic that you should point this out, since every institution of the state is a monopoly. But of course the state is run by wise, intelligent academics who don't abuse power, so we're OK.)

- Monopolies in a free society can only exist at the permission of their customers. In other words, a company can claim a "monopoly" simply because their products are so good, no one can compete. If a better product arises, their monopoly disappears. Color me stupid, but I can't see how this is a problem. Businesses don't control markets... they exert not one ounce of control without the help of the state [force.] Buyers control markets.

- Fines don't work without the threat of violence. All state programs rest on the threat of violence. That this violence rarely needs to be carried out is only evidence that people comply quickly, not that the threat does not exist. If a business does not pay a fine, they lose their license. If they continue to operate, police will come in and use force against them.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882866)

Presumably many people want nice parks, clean water, safe cars, and so on. When people want things, it generates something called "demand" in the economy

Capitalism means that your "want" has to be greater than everyone else's "want" in terms of cash on the barrel before you get what you want. Want a park? Developers want that land to build $500k houses on. Ready to pony up a few million dollars for your park? No?

You're welcome to say "then it's fine you don't get a park". You're not welcome to imply that capitalism will provide otherwise.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882920)

The world is a safe place to live because of our wise regulatory overlords. (People can't be trusted to decide on their own what might harm them, but those same people can be trusted to regulate millions of other people using the threat of force.)

Actually, people cannot. Can you identify salmonella tainted food? Toothpaste that contains lead? Cars that will disintegrate in an accident because of cheap steel? Planes that won't crash because of poor maintenance?

Saying regulatory agencies aren't necessary because "people can decide for themselves what is safe" is just as logical as saying "police aren't necessary because people can protect themselves".

I really think we should start calling these "libertarians" what they really are... Anarchists.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883282)

Agreed on the anarchist thing. Also worth mentioning- People will protect themselves.. how do you suppose they'll do it.. perhaps they'll make a watch-group. Maybe we'll call it the police. Maybe other people will want protecting as well. Then at some point, we'll decide as a group that society benefits better if the police protect everybody equally, to discourage crime unilaterally. Oops, did we just invent a government? Let's skip these steps and just say we're better off without anarchism.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883312)

I've been doing that for myself for several years now. Anarchist isn't a slur, it's a compliment.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (1)

ewieling (90662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883454)

People who dislike government so much should move to Somalia, where there is no government.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882626)

Must have been a while ago since they weren't yet 'defending the homeland', nor hiring secret police who say things like 'your papers please.' Nor secretly wiretapping you (with permission from a secret court) because your neighbour anonymously 'reported you' (likely because your dogs barking bothered him enough to trigger a witch hunt). The slippery slope towards a police state is fast approaching the shape and speed of an Olympic luge track (and the U.S. people are Nodar Kumaritashvili [njnnetwork.com] ).

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882890)

Although you are right, that there are things to fear, it doesn't make the parents post any less relevant. It's amazing to me that we bitch and moan so much when we could have just as easily been born in North Korea, China, Soviet Russia, etc., etc., etc... In comparison to the vast majority of human societies the USA is a pretty great place.

Should we stay vigilant and tirelessly defend our constitutional rights. Absolutely.
Should we be thankful for government programs such as the one's mentioned by parent? Absolutely.
Should we be sure we aren't just pessimistic whiners about domestic policy destroying our nation while we lounge comfortably in our computer chairs... Most Definitely.

Let's just be sure we're keeping things in perspective folks. This isn't a police state or socialist republic by any measure of the word and far, far from it... (at least for now).

Re:The government can't do anything right? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882700)

The story only makes the example that government is involved in every part of our lives. It doesn't mean it does a good job with anything it touches. The opposite of people that insinuate that government is an utter failure at anything it touches, is people who believe government is the solution to everything.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (2, Interesting)

englishknnigits (1568303) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882744)

Except that old post forgot to mention the US post office is operating way into the red, public schools are terrible, the FDA approves drugs that are harmful and makes unprofitable remedies illegal to issue as medicine, the USDA let countless salmonella, ecoli, etc. contaminated foods hit the shelves that killed people, the weather service is never right, NASA wastes money hand over fist and produces surprisingly few results for the cost, the FCC allows decapitation but not boobs, the military is spread out across the globe to police the world (which we can't afford to do), the Federal Reserve Bank (with help from Congress) caused/allowed the housing bubble to form and is now debasing our currency, forests were just fine before the US National Park Service (could they really survive without our help?!?!?!), but I have to say that the internet is pretty neat. Did I miss anything?

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883428)

The post office's problems are more with their pension obligations than their operations. IOW obligations set by Congress. Public schools are run by local school boards, not some federal agency with authority to fix anything. If the FDA does approve anything that is harmful, it's because the pharma companies lie to them, which they'd do just the same otherwise. The USDA gets blamed for not stopping things, but you will never ever notice when things go right. My experience with the weather service has been pretty good. NASA produces many results, but most people don't notice them, the military doesn't control where it goes, the politicians you elect do, and it was the banks that forced Congress to make the reserve cause the whole bubble.

And the forests? They'd be cut down by other people if nobody stopped them. People are greedy.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882758)

All of those government activities you mention "serve the interests of the people" directly and demonstrably and they do so without the need for removing our individual liberties. (Well, with some exceptions such as the right to buy raw milk... I don't get it... not fair at all.)

On the other hand, these people tracking measures are implemented by parties whose interests lie in restricting, regulating and even denying our liberty. To make a comparison is simply inappropriate.

But on the point that "government can't do anything right" I agree with you. When the government serves the interests of the people, it shows. FDA, USDA and more are all useful and necessary. Additional police powers are not and are certainly not in the interests of the people or in keeping with the limitations stipulated in the constitution -- a set of laws which are in place specifically to limit the powers of government so as not to abuse its power or the people it serves. (It was designed with "we don't want to live the way we did under British rule again" in mind.)

Re:The government can't do anything right? (3, Funny)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882778)

In response, I say...

"TSA"

QED.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

ChrisGoodwin (24375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882938)

Time was, food wasn't inspected, water wasn't clean, and buildings weren't built to code. People died as a result. Everyone who says "the market will take care of that" forgets that the market didn't, until the government said they had to.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883046)

Forgot the well-rounded education, overseen by the eponymous Department, that gives you something to do other than bang rocks together all day long, or hold signs about too-high taxes, depending on your whim.

Re:The government can't do anything right? (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883274)

You have a point, but the problem here is that this story falsely implies that government is the only way to provide these services or that it is the most efficient way. That a system functions at all is not a reason not to improve it.

Dupey Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882252)

Dupe Dupe Dupe Dupe Dupe Dupe DUPE.

Re:Dupey Dupe (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882274)

Hmmm...trying to combine the theme from the original Batman (last story - about the superhero capes) with this one. +1 subtle humor.

It says a lot about our country... (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882278)

That people actually fear that the government is sufficiently flexible to run something this complicated and sophisticated.

Be much more afraid when they start using terms like "deputizing" to describe a public-private partnership with companies that actually can do this for them.

Re:It says a lot about our country... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883030)

Its not going to be government run. Have you not read one single thing about this program?

Re:It says a lot about our country... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883152)

That people actually fear that the government is sufficiently flexible to run something this complicated and sophisticated.

The government doesn't need to run something this complicated, they just need to be able to convince a jury that they can. See also: DNA testing until people started doing research and finding almost "impossible" 1:100billion matches in "dozens" of completely unrelated people: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/07/20/0244237/FBI-Fights-Testing-For-False-DNA-Matches [slashdot.org] Now that criminals have the right to demand tests of their own, we're getting to hear the prosecutors tell everyone how it's "inconclusive".

As long as the prosecutor can convince 12 angry men that the government really can make a gui in visual basic to track back the government ID just like on TV, they'll do it.

Trey Parker had it right (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882320)

The US wants to become the World Police.

Re:Trey Parker had it right (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882398)

where the fuck have you been? The US has been assuming that role for the last 65 years

Re:Trey Parker had it right (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882634)

They've never required official american "citizenship" identification for the rest of the world before, is what I'm saying.

Re:Trey Parker had it right (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882878)

I must have missed that part of the article.

Re:Trey Parker had it right (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882886)

Become? Don't you mean "IS"?

US "we think you have weapons of mass destruction banned by the world."
Iraq "no we don't"
US "we want to send inspectors to verify you don't"
Iraq "we don't have them and they are not welcome here"
US "then we have no choice but to..."
Iraq "okay okay!!! we'll let the inspectors in but they won't find anything!"
US "okay, they didn't find anything, but that just means you have them hidden better than we thought... we're invading you now."
Iraq "Oh shit... I need to hide in a hole."
US "damn... I guess they were right! There are no WMDs!! Our bad... but now that we are here, the region is unstable and we have to stay to clean up the mess we made... we're not going anywhere."

US "We think you are harboring a known terrorist. Hand him over."
Afghanistan "We're not even a real nation, we're a bunch of war lords in territories that are impossible to control, but be my guest -- if you want him, find him and take him."
US "Okay, here we come! And by the way, if you know anyone who might be a terrorist, just write the names down and we'll take them too."
Afghanistan "Okie dokie! I have a brother-in-law and a neighbor I don't like... they might be terrorists because I like you and they don't."
US "We've got room for them in hotel GITMO! Got any more?"

And that's just recently... there's more... lot's more.

Re:Trey Parker had it right (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883414)

US "damn... I guess they were right! There are no WMDs!! Our bad...

it should be noted, for completeness, that wikileaks reports that chemical and biological weapons (which ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction, like it or not) were being found in Iraq for years after the invasion of Iraq.

Thank god you're reading slashdot (4, Informative)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882340)

...Where a link to an article about computer credentials can become an 800-count thread where people don't talk about the article, and prefer to spin yarns about Hangar 18 conspiracies all the while claiming the exact opposite of what's actually going on.

“That’s what a lot of people feared — that the government was going to take REAL ID and put it on the Internet and be able to track everybody’s Internet activity,” Stepanovich said.

That is not what’s contained in the NSTIC proposal, to the relief of privacy advocacy groups.

The government has set out principles — chief among them “choice, efficiency, security and privacy” — more than mechanics. But the basic idea is that you could have your offline identity verified online by a company of your choosing. That company would then provide you with a single credential you could then present (when you don’t want to be anonymous online) to Amazon, or VA.gov, instead of having to re-establish that you are who you say you are with every online transaction.

The device carrying your credential — a flash drive, a cellphone, a smart card of some kind — would authenticate itself, rather than referring Amazon to the company that vouches for you. Amazon would know the buyer was secure, and the credential would know it was communicating with a bookseller, but the authentication provider would never learn that you just bought Bob Woodward’s new book.

You can see why private industry would hate this proposal: it robs third parties of the ability to collect advertising and customer data through user authentication. So naturally they'll use scaremongering and useful idiots civil libertarians to claim this isn't what it is, and that we're much better off with a completely private system with no rules as to who can collect what data about what.

Re:Thank god you're reading slashdot (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882516)

You can see why private industry would hate this proposal: it robs third parties of the ability to collect advertising and customer data through user authentication.

So what, exactly, is the societal benefit of the governments new ability to directly compile a secret list of everyone whom purchased Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" from Amazon, over the current system where they merely order Amazon to do it for them, or buy the info from commercial marketing databases?

Also you miss the power of a SQL JOIN statement. My CC card company knows Very Well Indeed exactly who I am. Amazon knows that credit card account purchased a certain book. They all "share and share alike" or maybe more like "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need". So, how, exactly, does Amazon not already know everything about me now, or with this baroque byzantine proposal, in the future?

Not only is private industry not being robbed, I can't figure out who is being robbed, of anything really. I guess its a big waste of money, meaning someone will get a shiny crispy new income stream by having donated to the correct politicians election campaigns, but aside from that, does it really change anything? At all?

Re:Thank god you're reading slashdot (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882682)

So what, exactly, is the societal benefit of the governments new ability to directly compile a secret list of everyone whom purchased Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" from Amazon, over the current system where they merely order Amazon to do it for them, or buy the info from commercial marketing databases?

What are you talking about? Under the NSTIC proposal nobody keeps this data except for the person you bought the book from. There is no central database, there is no government database, there is no private database -- someone who wants to make that connection has to ask the person who sold the book to disclose the information, and if they want to bind it to a credit card they have to ask the credit card company to disclose their map of accounts to names.

What this is trying to head off is a completely private single sign-on, like Facebook or Google's OpenID platform, which would want nothing more than to become your one-stop shop for personal authentication on websites and for financial transactions, because under current law it means they are permitted to track and record all of that information and use it to market services to you. If the government is able to mandate a system where this information is unavailable to authentication providers, it will improve privacy by keeping your personal data OUT of third-party "authentication brokerages" and databases.

this baroque byzantine proposal

It's forty pages, big type, and no math. It's far shorter, and much more readable, than the PGP RFC. I guess this sort of lazy argument is typical around here, though -- simply assert your desired truth with a glibertarian eye-roll, and do it loudly enough, and that which you wish to be true will eventually become the CW.

Re:Thank god you're reading slashdot (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882970)

What are you talking about? Under the NSTIC proposal nobody keeps this data except for the person you bought the book from.

Transitivity. I don't know where you get the idea there are no databases. There already are, and they're shared amongst all big players. This is just intended to make it easier to link them together.

What exactly does authentication have to do with market analysis? My local LDAP server does not look at my amazon recommendations before letting me log in, it just checks the password. So.. revamping the detailed procedures of the authentication department will affect the market analysis and targeted advertising departments exactly how?

So, rather than logging in locally and then freely trading marketing data, we'll have a complicated authentication system after which we'll freely trade marketing data.

I'm more offended at the sham of it. Like calling relatively minor administrative changes "full blown socialized medicine". Or calling giving up our civil rights the "patriot act". If they honestly described it as "just fooling around with shared logins that will have no improvement WRT privacy or identity theft" then it wouldn't be offensive.

Re:Thank god you're reading slashdot (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883252)

There already are, and they're shared amongst all big players. This is just intended to make it easier to link them together.

But you're doing business with Amazon, somebody you're doing business with has a right to record what you buy. I'm talking about companies that have no right to this data collecting it anyways, because they manage to make their authentication platforms defacto standards without any regulation over what they're allowed to collect. A rule that says Google has no access to your purchases through it's authentication platform is a good rule; if they want this data they should have to buy it from Amazon in a free exchange like anything else, instead of using it's gatekeeper power to dictate terms onto counterparties.

My local LDAP server does not look at my amazon recommendations before letting me log in, it just checks the password. So.. revamping the detailed procedures of the authentication department will affect the market analysis and targeted advertising departments exactly how?

This is for mapping a login to a human being; your LDAP is for mapping a login to privileges. It's two different problems; nobody was ever able to open a credit card account with an LDAP record. As long as you aren't bothered with mapping something to a particular human, this has nothing to do with you.

So, rather than logging in locally and then freely trading marketing data, we'll have a complicated authentication system after which we'll freely trade marketing data.

Why is it wrong to buy and sell marketing data? It's a free exchange -- instead of the current trajectory, where you simply won't be able to do business without incumbent authentication systems, wether they are Verisigns, Googles, or Facebooks, using their clout to force counterparties to share their data.

Re:Thank god you're reading slashdot (2)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882796)

I'm one of the few people here who's been hoping for a system like this. I absolutely hate using personal information (name, DOB, SSN, mother's maiden name) as a means of authenticating one's identity. As it stands right now, if you know those, you may as well be the person. It's awful.

That said, this proposal isn't perfect and I believe that it is absolutely vital that instead of trying to stop it because it's not perfect, that instead we try to make it better and make an effort to see that new policy reflects our needs. The main issue with the current proposal is that it still has a single point of failure where if someone gets my phone/smart card/login (and associated PIN/password/etc.), I have my identity stolen. This proposed system is better than the current system in that I should be able to revoke a stolen identity easily under this proposal. However, there are other measures that could be taken to make this framework more secure.

I'd prefer to see a web of trust system based on multiple providers. I pay a phone bill with a given address, phone number, and personal information. I have a bank account with that same information on file. I pay rent with that same information on file. We need to have a way for all of these relationships to be used to say: we all have this guy on file at this address and phone number, and if there's someone else out there who doesn't answer this phone number and mail at this address, then he probably isn't the same guy.

Re:Thank god you're reading slashdot (1)

PantherSE (588973) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882848)

As Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg address, that the US government is "[a] government of the people, by the people, for the people". In order for Mr. Lincoln's vision to truly happen, we Americans, need to use the grey matter sitting on the top of our heads. I agree that it's a shame when people who would be expected to use their intellect--such as slashdot readers--are simply echoing conspiracy theories that cannot be categorically proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would say that we the people have a right to question the motivation of the White House in proposing NSTIC; and I would expect it to come from my fellow slashdotters. However, questioning alone doesn't solve the problem; we should also provide solutions. That, I feel, is what makes a healthy debate. Questioning alone makes you sound like a toddler asking "why" questions because they are learning about the world around them. My challenge to everyone who would question the motivation of all the players for and against the NSTIC is this: formulate specific questions based on the documents available about the proposed "national online security system". If your question is based on what's not in the document then say so. The government is capable of doing really well, and miserably failing, and it's up to us "the people" to keep them accountable for the activity of the government.

Re:Thank god you're reading slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883544)

As Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg address, that the US government is "[a] government of the people, by the people, for the people". In order for Mr. Lincoln's vision to truly happen, we Americans, need to use the grey matter sitting on the top of our heads.

I suspect we'd get better results by using the grey matter in our heads...

As if we could stop it (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882378)

Hey, even not using in won't help.

...after the first few years you won't be able to use a credit card without it. (Or cash a check, if we still have checks, or use cash, if we still have cash.)

Oh, right ... (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882440)

So ... I'm going to trust a government agency (especially one which has a vested interest in spying on us) to come up with a universal ID scheme which is secure, private, and actually works -- and doesn't have back doors?

What the hell does DHS care about how people keep track of their on-line accounts other than to be sure they can track you?

I'm sorry, but I don't trust this organization to perform this function ... either from a competence perspective, or from a trust perspective. I can only imagine it subsequently becoming illegal to not use this and Officer Friendly shows up at your door for your internet ID re-education.

I can see all sorts of chilling effects like freedom of association and anonymous speech -- but, it will be hammered home to protect against kiddie porn and identity theft.

This is a colossally bad idea, and worthy of a full-on tin-foil hat response. The government should stay the hell out of the internet and how people authenticate on it. And, really, unless you're also planning on having "Internet America" which is firewalled and distinct from the rest of the internet, this simply won't work.

Re:Oh, right ... (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882490)

I admire your ability to air legitimate concerns while simultaneously sounding like a paranoid crackpot.

Re:Oh, right ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882642)

I admire your ability to air legitimate concerns while simultaneously sounding like a paranoid crackpot.

It's a delicate balance. ;-)

But, the reality is, for a lot of us, 1984 and Brave New World (and most any other dystopian future scenario) serve as a strong template for identifying all of the things which we must never allow to happen.

I believe this would be a colossal undermining of individual freedoms, and an incredibly terrifying notion. To me, this is the start of eroding several Constitutional amendments and articles -- all in the guise of "security" and a pandering government; and if China or Libya was doing this, everyone would be screeching loudly about how evil it is. But it's good if it's DHS? Fuck that.

Quite honestly, I can live with being accused of sounding like a paranoid crackpot.

Re:Oh, right ... (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882954)

Start of eroding??? Have you been asleep for the past decade?

Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you.

Re:Oh, right ... (1)

paltemalte (767772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882676)

Yes its certainly crackpot in nature, because there are absolutely no examples of government spying or abuse aimed at its citizens in the past, so implying we'd need to worry now is tantamount to the utmost crackpot tinfoil conspiracy theorist ridiculousness, isn't it?

Re:Oh, right ... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883040)

I'm going to trust a government agency (especially one which has a vested interest in spying on us) to come up with a universal ID scheme which is secure, private, and actually works -- and doesn't have back doors?

Nope.

The DHS would not have access to any DB of online transactions (because there wouldn't be one). No government organization would be in charge of handing out IDs (this job would be done by an array of, presumably for profit, business entities). The businesses which did hand out the IDs would not be informed of where, when, or how you use them, the IDs themselves are the authentication (basically how secureIDs work). If you don't trust those safegaurds, there's nothing preventing you from getting multiple IDs from multiple providers so that no single business had all your information (although, again, they don't get any information other than what you explicitly give them when ordering your ID).

The internet ID is just a framework. Standardizing the authentication system so that a single ID that you get from one party can be used across the entire internet without sending any information between sites. It's nothing like what the internet speculation thought it was going to be. There's no central DB for the information. There's no cross communication between entities. Even if the Government got a warrant to look at your transactions, they'd still have to go to each website they want information from and request them one by one, just as things are today.

Re:Oh, right ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883388)

Even if the Government got a warrant to look at your transactions, they'd still have to go to each website they want information from and request them one by one, just as things are today.

And, once it's in place and they have your ID for any site, then all they need to do is compile a list of however many people they want, and send out a series of documents to a bunch of sites and say "Please provide all of the information for the following IDs, and it's national security, so you can't tell anybody".

If you don't think this actually makes it easier for the government to spy on you, then you're far too trusting or don't know enough about technology.

And, of course, when it's illegal to have an account on one of those sites which isn't tied to this ID, then it will be impossible/illegal to have an ID with which the government can't track you nice and easily. Line up and get a tattoo for them to make it easier to track you as you go through the checkpoints, citizen.

I find your scenario to be hopelessly naive ... or, exactly what someone who wanted the keys to everyone's privacy would say. Because, after all, government would never abuse their powers or use them in ways they initially said they wouldn't [slashdot.org] , right? The fact that it's the DHS pushing this means that I trust them even less -- they're more than willing to sidestep civil liberties if it suits their needs.

The credibility and trust of a system like this last about 1 week, and then someone will start to abuse it. And, then it's too damned late. As soon as government has this, it will be abused.

Re:Oh, right ... (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883540)

"Please provide all of the information for the following IDs, and it's national security, so you can't tell anybody".

Is the system now really such an impediment? Does the fact that you login as shubniggurath34 on one site by joewilsonATgmail on another really give you any measure of security or compartmentalization? If you want to prevent the government from taking data without a warrant you have to pass a law forbidding that; relying on the complexity of the internet login system to obfuscate your identity is just that, security through obscurity. The fact that the government abuses its powers, and the fact that any crook can steal your credit report if they know your SSN and mother's maiden name are unrelated issues, and I personally am not willing to tolerate the latter in the (basically illusory) hope of frustrating the former.

And, of course, when it's illegal to have an account on one of those sites which isn't tied to this ID, then it will be impossible/illegal to have an ID with which the government can't track you nice and easily. Line up and get a tattoo for them to make it easier to track you as you go through the checkpoints, citizen.

Turner Diaries much?

peer-to-peer vouching system (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882454)

I'm trying to work on a peer vouching system to establish identity and real existence of people sufficient to conduct a reliable global electronic vote.

Anyone have any ideas what kind of algorithm might work for that?

The idea is roughly along the lines of: What is the chance that a facebook "person" is a fake person or a duplicate person. A facebook account holder who has x number of friends each of whom have x number of friends (not forming small closed cliques but with some measure of wider global interconnectivity).

Detecting fakes would seem to me to be akin to the problem google has of detecting self-promoting link farms.

Anyway, any ideas about this? Not really interested in political ideas about it. Just technical ones about whether it's doable and how to.

Could this kind of bottom up identity/reputation establishment compete for validity with a top-down government system?

Re:peer-to-peer vouching system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882764)

Quick issue comes to mind here... How do new users gain trust of other users to initially build their authentication network?

Re:peer-to-peer vouching system (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882788)

I'm trying to work on a peer vouching system to establish identity and real existence of people sufficient to conduct a reliable global electronic vote.

Anyone have any ideas what kind of algorithm might work for that?

None, because there is no, or at least no simple, technical solution to the social problems of simple rubber hose coercion, vote buying, outright civil disobedience by the electorate, the innumerable electioneering laws about physical separation of campaigners and voting sites, lack of legal peer liability (if a poll worker decides to intentionally let me illegally vote, they are liable, but if I'm facebook friends with someone who cannot legally vote, or friends with a real person and an alias of that person...), serious privacy problems (how will all your peers know if you are legally able to vote?) and what essentially boils down to MITM keystroke logging attacks.

Anyway, any ideas about this?

Deployed systems that at least half way work: Debian ring of trust, that new web of trust thingy recently added to freenet.

Could this kind of bottom up identity/reputation establishment compete for validity with a top-down government system?

Uh, no. Maybe for Dancing with the American Survivor Idols voting, where it doesn't really matter, so no one intelligent cares enough to break the overall system.

Re:peer-to-peer vouching system (1)

Chibinium (1596211) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883014)

This has the same computational complexity as the Turing test, except instead of distinguishing between AI and Real I, you're trying to separate Real Real I from Fake Real I.

First put your pants on, THEN you can leave the house.

Re:peer-to-peer vouching system (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883044)

Once this system is working, would that mean we can do away with the electoral college? No? What, then, would be the point?

Re:peer-to-peer vouching system (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883330)

Once this system is working, would that mean we can do away with the electoral college? No?

The primary real world use of the EC is as a reward to minor state level party functionaries. A family member of a friend got to be one. I don't remember the pres although given his leanings it must have been for Bush the First. The electors party and hang out together, make connections and schmooze. They hang out with lobbyists, insiders, etc. It would have been inappropriate for me to ask if their expenses were reimbursed, but I'm guessing the answer is yes, and from the stories of modest debauchery I heard, those would have been somewhat high expenses. On the other hand I heard even more indirectly that "married with children" electors treat it as a family vacation, bring the kids out for a week to see the sights, etc, vs hard core businessmen who show up "the day of" do their deed and fly home that night. I guess its most correct to say its a "political party" in the literal sense of the word, and individuals all party very differently...

Each state decides how they want to select electors, so I would guess that in addition to inherent individual and cultural variation, a state that selects by candidate will have much different elector personalities than a state that selects by party or by primary.

Another failed idea from Gary Locke (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882466)

Here in Seattle, Gary Locke is looked upon by most as some one who takes larger pride in his Chinese heritage than he does with his US. I have heard Gary speak at about 3-4 public events, and every time he has this story about how proud he is to be Chinese and have parents who came to this country from China. With Gary on his way to China to work there as US Ambassador in Beijing, there is even more reasons to be skeptical about his proposals.

US Identity (2)

omb (759389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882486)

There are just two things:

(1) This does not solve the problem, only multi-lateral web of trust does that, ie PGP or X509 keys signed by your counterparties

(2) Obummer's Administration will get it all wrong so (a) we have many more years of scams (b) it will provide endless opportunity for DHS, TSA, CIA and FBI to act ultra-vires and outside the constitution.

Google "Swiss Sign" to see how to it right, respecting citizens privacy

Re:US Identity (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883094)

This does not solve the problem, only multi-lateral web of trust does that, ie PGP or X509 keys signed by your counterparties

Nobody will ever accept this system unless you force it on them with laws, the power of laziness is just too strong.

Google "Swiss Sign" to see how to it right, respecting citizens privacy

I did. You have to buy your identification from the Swiss post office for 65 francs, the post office digitally signs your cert after you bring your government ID card to a post office for visual inspection, and then they issue you a PIN-locked USB key. This is your "multi-lateral web of trust"?

"Expert in electronic privacy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35882528)

"Emily Badger is a freelance writer living in the Washington, D.C. area who has contributed to The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor. She previously covered college sports for the Orlando Sentinel and lived and reported in France."

Where is the electronic privacy expert part?

Re:"Expert in electronic privacy" (1)

kosty (52388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883336)

I just assumed Emily Badger isn't her real name. ;-)

Totally stewpidt summary (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882544)

Is it the beginning to government tracking?

No, that began before most of us were even born. Now go study some history, and don't submit any more blurbs as if they are stories.

Internet Identity (1)

applematt84 (1135009) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882750)

Sounds like "Internet Communism" to me.

Not to mention just another way your identity can be stolen.

Re:Internet Identity (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882888)

Sounds like "Internet Communism" to me.

Not Communism, which is mostly about who owns the means of production and the like.

This is the beginnings of fascism [wikipedia.org] .

Wahhhhh (1)

ChrisGoodwin (24375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35882906)

Anybody on Facebook needs to STFU about "government tracking you online". Facebook sells more to its advertisers than the government will ever know about you.

1984's Ministry of Love (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35883006)

Hmmm. Sounds like 1984's Ministry of Love, doesn't it?

: (

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883234)

Rather ironic that the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is slowly but surely progressing to a point where the only ones who will really have "freedom" will be the outlaws that all these things are supposedly being put in place to catch.

Run for your lives! (1)

Kaleidomorph (2007278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35883398)

Yet another way for Homeland Security to keep track of US citizens who don't like what the corrupt government and big business are up to. Oops. I meant to say 'terrorists'. Hell, it's just a word used as an excuse to let the US elite do whatever the hell they want. Homeland Security is just the US's version of the SS. Awww crap. I mentioned Nazis.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>