71–80 of 199 posts
After that, it becomes unconstitutional, far as I know.
So, in other words, it's unconstitutional, because it won't be used only for commerce.
The fact is that we want (and can) enter into contracts on the Internet. In order to enforce contracts we must have identities. Since the Government (specifically the judiciary) enforces contracts, this means that we must be entering into these contracts under Government-managed identities.
Currently we acquire and prove this Government-managed identity using an ad-hoc, decentralised, system with much duplication. I can use a passport or my driver's license or my birth certificate or perhaps some utility bills or some combination. This causes various problems, including fraud and waste.
If two parties mutually choose to enter into a contract over the Internet, and this contract is to be enforced by the judiciary, then it would be ideal for them to be able to verify each others' legal entities and authorisation. I think that properly implemented this could eliminate a large amount of online fraud.
Nothing about the principle of such a system inherently creates privacy problems, since when parties enter into a contract they already expect to reveal their identities to each other, and nothing would necessarily be forcing people to reveal their identities in any other situation, just the same as is the case at the moment.T here is a risk of a slippery slope of course; I can't deny that.
There's no reason such a system has to be centralised, though. X.509 certificates would work fine, for example, issued at the same time as a birth certificate, with each local office as a CA.
Unfortunately, the problem is with implementation. I don't think that any government is competent enough to put a system together that does meet privacy requirements, and there are too many self-interested parties who would influence and corrupt the design of such a system.
This article is pretty light on details. Here's a quote from the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt: 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. Read…
I don't have to get (one) Cool. They've got the OK from me. It could turn out to be neat, and so long as it's optional I'm not worried.
IANAL, but this is technically legal, so long as it's used ONLY for commerce, by means of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. After that, it becomes unconstitutional, far as I know. So, in other words, it's unconstitutional, because it won't be used only for commerce.
Actual draft of the proposal from June 2010: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf Note that if [generic scary three letter agency] wants to spy on you it's already quite easy for them to do so (see FISA, CALEA, NSLs, Sugar Grove, etc).
It's not really about spying.
It's about a government bureaucracy having the power to control your identity.
If Visa cancels my card I can get an AMEX. The CIA has limited reach here.. the alphabet soups can't easily freeze my bank account.
But if the government controls my ID card, they can shut me down utterly and I have no recourse aside from the broken judicial system.
The simple fact of the matter is that corporations such as Visa and HSBC and Equifax are more trustworthy than the government.
Giving the government the ability to authenticate humans online is giving them WAY TOO MUCH UNCHECKED POWER.
This is a waste of time. Any good intelligence organization can already gain most or all or probably too much of the information they need from online actions, transactions, networks, posts/comments, protocol sniffing, ISP/ad network data, re-routing/copying traffic, social hacking, infected pcs, etc. And if you are encrypting, proxying, spoofing then you are Anonymous and already on the radar. This Internet ID would…
Great, another channel for identity theft.
I'll be getting one of these when hell freezes over. If that means starting my own Internet, then that's exactly what I'll do.
I live in a rural area and several of my friends are going the self sufficient route and my wife and I are at least putting in enough solar panels to generate about 3/4 of the electricity that we currently use.
The country I live in (USA) is in rapid decline and it would be naive to believe that all utilities and infrastructure will stay online 100% of the time. Having a useful local "localnet" would be a good idea, and could be fun also as a community activity. Perhaps libraires would be good hubs and meeting places to set this up. Even better to also get the local police, fire department and city government involved: something to bring the whole community together.