Joho the Blog
|
|
|
December 23, 2002
Eric gives a fast, breezy, and fascinating story of his life so far. and then responds to AKMA. Great framing of the current controversy Eric started by publishing the rough draft of his thoughts. Also, Eric makes the important point that as companies increasingly require us to have an in-house ID, we're getting used to the notion of having one out on the big bad Web. I do take exception to his saying that I'm among those insisting that digital ID can't capture my soul, man. I've instead been insisting that the only thing "digital identity" has in common with "personal identity" is the use of the word "identity." The problems I have with digital ID have to do with its importance (Eric thinks it's the linchpin to the new economy), who will own it, and how easy it will be to abuse. Posted
by D. Weinberger at December 23, 2002 01:05 PM
|
Comments
Beyond all of the philosophical depth of what identity is, I have no problem with any digital ID as long as long as it meets the following criteria:
1) I totally control what it is (the degree to which it defines and reveals my real identity. In other words, it can encode all of my reputations without revealing my address, phone number or real name.
2) I totally control who has access to it and how it is used.
3) I have the freedom to have as many ID's as I want for different types of transactions.
As long as those conditions are met, I'll agree to letting others have the freedom to either do or not do business with me or interact with me based on these contaminate-proof reputations.
Posted by: Paul Hughes | December 24, 2002 12:29 AM
Very informed and interesting comments! Greetings.
online casino
Posted by: online casino | May 20, 2004 12:16 AM