9 replies to this topic

[Doc Snow]

I just read through this article and would like to hear what everyone here thinks of this.


http://www.cbsnews.c...837-501465.html

They say that the id's are optional and that anonymity on the net will still be protected but it still seems like the beginning of something much bigger.

Edited by Doc Snow, 13 January 2011 - 03:48 PM.

[nyphonejacks]

there are a lot of IFs in with this...

IF it is optional....
IF it is run by the private sector and not the government...
IF there are controls in place to prevent abuse of the information...

but.. if something like this is optional what is the point of it in the first place...

i can see that something like this might be of benefit to the casual internet user and e-commerce merchants in proving the identity of the buyer or seller of stuff over the internet...

but... i can also see something like this being misused for purposes that it was not intended for (at least not on the surface) such as the PATRIOT ACT has been misused against american citizens for all types of reasons unrelated to domestic or international terrorism...

[ozlo]

but.. if something like this is optional what is the point of it in the first place...

It will optional in the same sense that paying Federal Income Tax is voluntary. Mandatory volunteerism!

[Doc Snow]

but... i can also see something like this being misused for purposes that it was not intended for (at least not on the surface) such as the PATRIOT ACT has been misused against american citizens for all types of reasons unrelated to domestic or international terrorism...

No matter what, things are almost never used in the way they are intended.

Ex:
the internet
prescription meds
phones & phone systems
etc...

[nyphonejacks]

but... i can also see something like this being misused for purposes that it was not intended for (at least not on the surface) such as the PATRIOT ACT has been misused against american citizens for all types of reasons unrelated to domestic or international terrorism...

No matter what, things are almost never used in the way they are intended.

Ex:
the internet
prescription meds
phones & phone systems
etc...

i thought the internet was for pr0n
prescription meds were to make you feel good
and phones & phone systems were to call your doctor to get more meds...

[resistor X]

IF it's voluntary, fine. Though I'd pitty the 'suckers' who'd do it. I mean, we're talking it would 'reduce or eliminate remembering many passwords' because they'd have the 'one ID'. One ID? Rather insecure sounding. Plus the fact that cannot lend to keeping private ones activities - how can it, when they'd have a trail that'd lead right back to their doorstep?

Security and privacy conscience my azz.

For anyone who would volunteer to give up security and privacy, I properly label them 'suckers'.

And they'd give up security and privacy for what purpose? For what seems to be the 'convenience' of not having to recall so many passwords anymore?? (I see no other reason why someone would want it). Hahaha... funny.

This is a good example of government boondongle - i.e. government intelligence, the true oxymoron. For them to act as peoples 'babysitters' and give them or a more convenient way to have passwords. The evidence of a contradiction in terms like in this statement in the article :

"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."

A waste of tax payers money. Sounds like a pork barrel project.

But onto a more important problem.............

Another issue here, which I find 'filled with ulterior motivation(s)", is this statement also found in the article :

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.

Ok?! So..... according to what he's said here, should "jane" (example fake person used for the sake of making this point) decide to get one, she has just 'given up' her ability to remain anonymous on the net. In other words, jane can't 'have and ID' and ALSO be able to get on places anonymous too. But, as my friend has just pointed out, "Guess that's the point."

Did you read that people? "Guess that's the point."

Ah! It appears the articles statement above I just mentioned is proof of 'something more' going on here, i.e. something other than, "We just want to do it to provide a service for people".

Uh huh.... ok...... That's the point, is right. For every one who 'volunteers' to do it, the government, by proxy (...but available to them when needed. And no 'centralized database' existing, as the article mentioned, is besides the point.... like the private companies involved won't cough up the info when asked for it?!), will have a nice trail that leads right back to each persons door... a trail of activities of all sorts. My, my, my...............

Let me introduce myself once again, "Hello, I'm Big Brotha".

Well, if you're the government and don't want to 'make it obvious' to privacy seekers and others, that you're going to keep files on people and use them if/when needed, just have a project where you 'have volunteers' who will take the ID and private companies keep those files/digital records of your activities, then when the government comes knocking, they'll have full profiles on all these suckers (volunteers) internet activities. What a better way to get 'full profiles' of peoples goings on WITHOUT looking like you're doing exactly that! That's the reason they've said "You can choose not to have the ID and remain anonymous on the internet" - it MEANS they've just ADMITTED that taking it means your privacy has just been LOST, lost because YOU CAN'T DO **BOTH**. LOST and kept in a digital file, oh.... not by a 'central database the government has', nope... instead 'right under your noses' at the private companies so when we come a calling, we'll nab it!!

They said it, I didn't. I just merely pointed it out. And if you hadn't noticed they said it, read that part of the article again........

............. it was this part HERE :

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.

Get that?? You can 'have the ID" but NOT the anonymity with it!!!! Hello?? Get it............... ? So, no anonymity means............... every site and what you do there is TIED TO THE I.D. TRAIL. ALL of it.


Get what that means?? They've ADMITTED IT ALL. Do you see that? It's there.
Hey government reading this.............. that statement is a near 100% perfect example of double speak. Congrats George Orwellianheads. "Better to have SOME peoples profiles, then none at all", eh??

Edited by resistor X, 17 January 2011 - 11:07 PM.

[nyphonejacks]

well the facebook generation has been being groomed to give up their personal information and privacy....

something like this seems to exist already, many sites that i visit ask to log in with facebook credentials that i do not have... while it would be very easy for someone to docs me right now, i do not want to feed too much information into the machine...

people will always go with what is the most convenient or user friendly, and if a company like facebook, or google decides to run something like this for the government i do not see something like this getting too much friction from the public, people would probably want something like this for its perceived benefits...

[resistor X]

well the facebook generation has been being groomed to give up their personal information and privacy....

something like this seems to exist already, many sites that i visit ask to log in with facebook credentials that i do not have... while it would be very easy for someone to docs me right now, i do not want to feed too much information into the machine...

people will always go with what is the most convenient or user friendly, and if a company like facebook, or google decides to run something like this for the government i do not see something like this getting too much friction from the public, people would probably want something like this for its perceived benefits...

I agree completely. This describes me as well :

while it would be very easy for someone to docs me right now, i do not want to feed too much information into the machine...

Or, like I said in the brief way of putting it... they're suckers.

See if I do that. Yeah.... I know better. I not only don't drop personal anything any place, I even intentionally feed misinformation around....

Take this classic yet easy one to do. I have a fake address listed on all my credit files. Hahaha, suckers didn't even see that coming. All one has to do is to fill out a few credit apps online with a fake home address and be sure to fill it in so you couldn't possibly get it approved. Then when the merchant checks the credit files, these credit agencies automatically glean new/updated info from your app you just filled out... hence they note the new home address, and viola! Now it's on the files.. for good, unless you do this trick again later on for whatever reason. Needless to say, I checked my credit reports afterwards to verify this trick works. it does.

Why that works is simply because it's one of the ways credit agencies have traditionally gathered info to place on peoples credit files. They glean it from apps the consumer themselves fill out, as well as what a creditor reports should you default on something.

In fact, I've done more than that actually. I also have an entire fake employment history, nearly a lifetime worth sitting on all my credit files, using the same method. All I did was list on those same credit apps I just mentioned I filled out, made up employment. When the merchants ran the apps through for the credit checks, the credit agencies also gleaned the 'new employer info' right off the faked credit apps. Hahahaha. Btw, I've done it over the years, meaning much more than once, so it's not 'some anomaly' that it's worked... it's worked every time too btw. Hahaha, suckers.

Oh, I also have a faked birth date on my credit files too... hahaha. Just doing that the same way as well.

Funny on them, eh? Hahaha.

Of course, I chose an address that goes to an apartment building I've never lived in nor would I. Suckers, like I said.

I'm on a roll... here's another planted misinformation thing I've done.......

My drivers license lists a fake address as well. I just mailed in a change of address form and it was done (because the state I'm in doesn't have an online way to do it yet). However, one minor glitch is a temporary one ....... which is when my I.D. comes around for expiration time, I'll have to update it to the real address 'for a short time' so they can mail me my new license, but once that's done with it's back to a fake one again....... not the same faked address, lest it leave some weird obvious suspicious looking pattern.

In fact, with things like license address change being available online for many states, you can simply choose to pick an address that's not even in your state. Talk about pointing everyone in the wrong direction... haha. Funny but true, them suckers don't know what hit them either...hahaha <sinister laff>.

I'm done with the roll I was on here.........

Later.

Edit : This reminds me of another funny one I've done a few times...........

Way back when I had a couple creditors bugging me trying to collect, so I threw them off by mailing 'sincere letters' saying I wanted to pay it off and included my 'new mailing address and phone number' so they can contact 'since I'm moving'. Guess what? Who was moving? Hahahahahaha... lets just say I never heard from them again.... funny thing is, when they reported the bad debt once again to the credit agencies, that faked address and phone showed up on the files. Good, I thought... more misinformation out there....
Hahaha... funny on them again.

I'd better stop typing... was still on a roll as you can see.

Edited by resistor X, 19 January 2011 - 03:25 AM.

[10nix]

Fuck this. This is a horrible idea.

#1: The US does not own the rights to the internet. We don't own it, we do not have the right to regulate it. We do not have the right to control it.
#2: As soon as the US government does this, online retailer's will require it. I've seen overly cautious web sites deny perfectly good credit cards because an obscure field (long form zip code for instance) didn't match. A login identification system backed by the US Government would remove almost all liability for fraudulent purchases, and online retailers will require it. Many other sites will require it as well, as a matter of course.
#3: Your anonymity on the internet will be protected so long as you do not use the internet.
#4: Imagine how much access someone would have if they could hack your ID.
#5: I can see this quickly leading to ISP's requiring the ID to login to their internet services as a way to CYA.

[systems_glitch]

Single Sign-On: now the attacker only needs to figure out one password.