Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

[Assume Nothing]

STANFORD' date=' 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.

 

The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.

 

The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)

 

"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."

 

The Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project, Locke said.

 

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.

 

Inter-agency rivalries to claim authority over cybersecurity have exited ever since many responsibilities were centralized in the Department of Homeland Security as part of its creation nine years ago. Three years ago, proposals were were circulating in Washington to transfer authority to the secretive NSA, which is part of the U.S. Defense Department.

 

In March 2009, Rod Beckstrom, director of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity Center, resigned through a letter that gave a rare public glimpse into the competition for budgetary dollars and cybersecurity authority. Beckstrom said at the time that the NSA "effectively controls DHS cyber efforts through detailees, technology insertions," and has proposed moving some functions to the agency's Fort Meade, Md., headquarters.[/quote']

 

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

 

So, is this a step forward or a leap back? Is there any point in a national id badge for using the internet? Would you vote for or against?

 

Discuss

[Racheya]

Ridiculous. This will start off as a 'voluntary' thing but I bet that corporations will twist it around to their bidding - especially the media companies.

[Alg]

Have to see where it goes from there. It's too early to say that x is guaranteed to destroy freedom forever, isn't it?

 

Still waiting on someone abusing their anonymity in such a way that an impossibly restrictive system is set into place though. Don't fail me now Anon :razz: (This is a joke)

[Sam]

Ridiculous. This will start off as a 'voluntary' thing but I bet that corporations will twist it around to their bidding - especially the media companies.

[Skull]

I think it'll take a national incident before stuff like this actually starts getting enacted. Also with the amount of opposition Obama faces, I don't think he'll really try to force anything like this through if he plans on running for re-election. I could be horribly wrong, but I don't see it being an immediate threat.

[Zaaps1]

Interesting. Time Magazine's person of the year for 2010 was Mark Zuckerberg, in case any of you didn't know, and they had an entire article about how Facebook was changing the internet. Part of the reason was that people's real life identities and their internet identities have begun to merge into the same because of Facebook (and obviously similar sites). If that's progress, then this is a step toward it.

 

Personally, I have no opinion. It could go either way; we just have to wait and see.

[OldJoe]

I'd rather be shot than censored by the government.

They are so afraid of people speaking their piece of mind.

But, this will be the future, no doubt. I don't think the internet will be as free as it is atm due to government control.

And no, I'm not a "foil hat".

 

I already carry my id around me on the internet, and this... Well, it would just be one step closer to see what the actual person does.

[Flyingjj]

I don't like this. As previously stated, it may start voluntary, but if it is convenient for companies, they'll make it mandatory for doing certain things.

[Guy]

I don't live in America, but it seems to be a step towards more government control. It does, however, just seem like one of those crazy ideas that gets put out there, though about, and dropped anyway. And how is it in any way practical? I've no idea how many internet users are in America, but it would be an enourmous effort to give everyone one of these e-ID Card thigs for practically no result. What are the government trying to achieve anyway?

If it went through, I'd strongly oppose it, but I really just think this is some idea that's been taken a little further than it normally would, but ultimately will be dropped.

[Hawks]

No, I don't want you all knowing where I live and what my real name is. You said I could keep my healthcare plan too, and that's not going to happen/isn't happening, so why would I trust anything else you say about anonymity?

 

This is wrong and hopefully people will understand why. There's no reason for it, and if you really want to, you can already pretty much do it. Having a government-run (government being the key word) system is not ever a good thing.

[Danqazmlp]

Interesting. Time Magazine's person of the year for 2010 was Mark Zuckerberg, in case any of you didn't know, and they had an entire article about how Facebook was changing the internet. Part of the reason was that people's real life identities and their internet identities have begun to merge into the same because of Facebook (and obviously similar sites). If that's progress, then this is a step toward it.

 

Personally, I have no opinion. It could go either way; we just have to wait and see.

 

 

This is an interesting point. How many of us already use our real identities for numerous things on the internet? Social networking, shopping and banking? It really only seems to be forums/comment systems on the internet where people don't want identities shown. I do worry about people losing some freedom of speech, but really, how far has the internet increased our freedom of speech so far? Many things seem to revolve around social networking where people actually use their real identities such as Facebook.

 

 

I'm somebody who doesn't mind if people know my real identity, freedom of speech will not be stifled by identities. We have also survived for years without internet being needed for social changes, why all of a sudden is it the be all and end all?

 

Also, this is, as said, voluntary. It would from what I understand be the same as entering your bank details on Amazon, then entering them on paypal. But instead of bank details, you would only need to enter your ID. This would also work on any other site using the system. Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

 

EDIT: I'm slightly disappointed in every bodies view that a government only wants to control everybody else and let nobody have any freedom. They are voted in by you and everybody else, they have constitutions to abide by. We all have legs and voices, if you don't like the gov, use them.

 

EDIT2: The Title, description and even the OP (not the quote) are incredibly biased and to anybody not reading the quote, make it sound as if the Gov wants to make the whole internet use REAL ID.

 

"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.

[Dupin]

This just in: Obama is credited with an unrealistic idea that makes a bunch of people angry. Ever wonder why they call it "new"s?

[Bloodstain]

Heh, you guys haven't heard about America requesting twitter to give the info for all 600k wikileaks twitter followers/subscribers (I'm not a twitter user, so someone can clarify that) have you? Private messages and everything

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf

[Dupin]

^Yeah, I saw that in the NYT. Supposedly they're building a case against Assange. What fun.

[Giordano]

"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' date=' through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

[/quote']

Who's a better safekeeper of my stuff that me? Really?

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.

So what does the government have to do with this now?

 

Interesting. Time Magazine's person of the year for 2010 was Mark Zuckerberg' date=' in case any of you didn't know, and they had an entire article about how Facebook was changing the internet. Part of the reason was that people's real life identities and their internet identities have begun to merge into the same because of Facebook (and obviously similar sites). If that's progress, then this is a step toward it.

[/quote']

Hardly. Facebook is only changing the internet because it's making the internet a better way of advertising for businesses. Plain and simple.

[Danqazmlp]

"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' date=' through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

[/quote']

Who's a better safekeeper of my stuff that me? Really?

 

Many people forget passwords and digital identities they have made, especially those who use many different sites.

 

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.

So what does the government have to do with this now?

 

That I'm not so sure.

 

Interesting. Time Magazine's person of the year for 2010 was Mark Zuckerberg' date=' in case any of you didn't know, and they had an entire article about how Facebook was changing the internet. Part of the reason was that people's real life identities and their internet identities have begun to merge into the same because of Facebook (and obviously similar sites). If that's progress, then this is a step toward it.

[/quote']

Hardly. Facebook is only changing the internet because it's making the internet a better way of advertising for businesses. Plain and simple.

 

That is just 100% wrong. Maybe not for people who previously used the internet and websites such as forums, but for the masses, (which the internet should be geared towards) it has changed social interactions hugely and it has brought these masses to the internet. Many people seem to think facebook is an evil to the world which does nothing, but I ask, how many of these actually use it? For those who do use it, it is a great way to communicate and organise for free. Instead of phoning 20 people, I can organise 20 people with ease in seconds. It hasn't brought many new things to the world, but it has brought all the things social networking has done to one place, which, by the amount of active users, has been a great success.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Assange isn't the first whistleblower history's ever documented and he won't be the last. Sure, the witchhunt against him is ridiculous, but before Wikileaks, there were (and still are) newspapers, and before then was the printing press. I don't get this obsession with asserting that the Internet = Free Speech, or even that free speech itself is threatened by the government knowing my online identity.

[Bloodstain]

Many people forget passwords and digital identities they have made, especially those who use many different sites.

 

Notepad. Or a pen and paper.

 

 

I wonder if this could be used to make it easier to identify torrent users who download music and movies?

[Danqazmlp]

Many people forget passwords and digital identities they have made, especially those who use many different sites.

 

Notepad. Or a pen and paper.

 

 

I wonder if this could be used to make it easier to identify torrent users who download music and movies?

 

And what if one were to lose said piece of paper?

 

People don't seem to be grasping what this is. It isn't, for example, an addition to your IP saying your name or anything which Identifies you if you don't want somebody to. It would be in place of a username or password on a website which would then identify you through that. Imagine going onto Amazon and instead of having to log in, it already knows who you are because you have such an ID? The same with any other site with this enabled which would need a username or password. I wouldn't mind something like this, especially with all the hastle I've been through before trying to prove my identity on the internet.

[Dupin]

What if I don't want my identity on Facebook connected to my identity on Amazon, or Pandora, or TIF, or Steam? Facebook did a thing a while back with tracking cookies (it was optional, but defaulted on and was complicated to turn off) where it would post in the news feed when you bought stuff or listened to music or did random things across the internet. It was met with huge consternation and I think there was a lawsuit. People want to keep things separate.

 

Yes, it's optional, and the slippery slopes could be inaccurate, but it's a step in a direction many of us don't want to go.

[All_Is_Great]

I thought that was only one-way, as you in can see what others are doing from FaceBook, but you couldn't tell who a person was on Facebook from Amazon/YT.

 

Anyways, what will this mean for Canada I wonder?

[Giordano]

Hardly. Facebook is only changing the internet because it's making the internet a better way of advertising for businesses. Plain and simple.

 

That is just 100% wrong. Maybe not for people who previously used the internet and websites such as forums, but for the masses, (which the internet should be geared towards) it has changed social interactions hugely and it has brought these masses to the internet. Many people seem to think facebook is an evil to the world which does nothing, but I ask, how many of these actually use it? For those who do use it, it is a great way to communicate and organise for free. Instead of phoning 20 people, I can organise 20 people with ease in seconds. It hasn't brought many new things to the world, but it has brought all the things social networking has done to one place, which, by the amount of active users, has been a great success.

 

No, that is 100% correct. It HAS simplified social interaction, but in the grand scheme of the world and it's history, that's really unimportant compared to the large potential market for businesses. And don't say anything about Facebook being evil because I never did nor did anyone in this thread.

 

 

And about the losing passwords: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Live with it.

[Zaaps1]

 

Interesting. Time Magazine's person of the year for 2010 was Mark Zuckerberg, in case any of you didn't know, and they had an entire article about how Facebook was changing the internet. Part of the reason was that people's real life identities and their internet identities have begun to merge into the same because of Facebook (and obviously similar sites). If that's progress, then this is a step toward it.

Hardly. Facebook is only changing the internet because it's making the internet a better way of advertising for businesses. Plain and simple.

 

Even assuming that's true, look at the way Facebook is doing it. Whereas something like Google can only guess at a user's preferences based off search history, Facebook can actually provide solid facts and details about a person to advertisers.

 

If you search a whole bunch of basketball terms/games/teams one day in Google, google will say "oh, this person is probably into basketball", and you might see a whole bunch of basketball ads on google. You could totally hate basketball. Someone could've just been using your computer to search, or maybe you were just curious, or maybe your best friend was talking to you and you didn't want to seem like you knew absolutely nothing, so you googled every other word he said.

 

Now if you list "Basketball" as one of your activities in Facebook, facebook will say, "oh, this person MUST be into basketball", and you'll see some basketball related ads in Facebook. When will this assumption be wrong? Downright never.

 

Thus, even in advertising, Facebook is combining who you are online with who you are in the real world.

[Danqazmlp]

Hardly. Facebook is only changing the internet because it's making the internet a better way of advertising for businesses. Plain and simple.

 

That is just 100% wrong. Maybe not for people who previously used the internet and websites such as forums, but for the masses, (which the internet should be geared towards) it has changed social interactions hugely and it has brought these masses to the internet. Many people seem to think facebook is an evil to the world which does nothing, but I ask, how many of these actually use it? For those who do use it, it is a great way to communicate and organise for free. Instead of phoning 20 people, I can organise 20 people with ease in seconds. It hasn't brought many new things to the world, but it has brought all the things social networking has done to one place, which, by the amount of active users, has been a great success.

 

No, that is 100% correct. It HAS simplified social interaction, but in the grand scheme of the world and it's history, that's really unimportant compared to the large potential market for businesses. And don't say anything about Facebook being evil because I never did nor did anyone in this thread.

 

 

And about the losing passwords: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Live with it.

 

 

I disagree, facebook has brought many people to the internet who previously wouldn't use it. That is what it will be remembered for. How many of the over 60's currently on the internet have started using it because of facebook? It's a little like the Wii, it is looked down upon by gamers, yet it has brought massive amounts of money into the business and many people into the gaming area. Mass appeal has made Facebook massively influential in society and communication.

 

Passwords: Yes it is personal responsibility, but that's only because a comprehensive system stopping it from being so hasn't been released yet. What is so wrong about a system making the internet easier to use for the masses? Are people that opposed to change?

[Giordano]

Are people that opposed to change?

:wall:

 

[bleep]ing ridiculous.