Eric Norlin, in supporting well-formed and humanistic digital ID, says identity is a “necessary precursor” to relationship: “How can companies have conversations with individual *human beings* if they can’t actually identify and know who they are?”

Sorry, Eric, but I simply don’t get this. If I write snail mail to Kellogg’s complaining about the lack of frosting on my flakes, in what sense do they need to know who I am to respond? All they need to know is where to send the response. If I send it by email, why do they need to know more than they do in the RW?

If you, Eric, are thinking about longer-term relationships with companies, if Kellogg’s is worried that their customer database won’t know that me@address1 is the same as myself@address2, they can ask me to register on their site. It happens all the time, without any further digital ID scheme required.

So, what does a more elaborate digital ID scheme get me besides an infrastructure that can be turned against me? What am I missing here?

10 Comments »

The US Patent and Trademark Office’s feel-good newsletter for April 2002 headlines “USPTO Patent Examines Advance Homeland Security.” The story introduces us to the patent examiners and the inventions they’re looking at. It’s not a bad puff piece. But the accompanying graphic is a tad disturbing:

Does the image of Uncle Sam peering through a keyhole at you give you the willies? If not, why not? Discuss amongst yourselves…

[Thanks, Chip, for the link.]

5 Comments »

Yesterday, TheInquirer discovered the source of the “AstroTurfed” letters to editors endorsing W’s great leadership. But what’s so wrong with a site that encourages people to write letters and suggests verbiage? It happens on all sides of the spectrum.

Today, however, TheInquirer finds it’s actually more cynical than it at first seems. Letter-writers earn 5 GOPoints for each letter, with a maximum of 20 per day. The points can be redeemed for 12-pack insulated bags, a leather portfolio and other Fabulous Prizes.

In case there’s any doubt, the site acknowledges that it’s “a Web site of the Republican National Committee.”

[Thanks, Betsy Devine.]

1 Comment »

A report from Stratfor a private intelligence firm (about which I know nothing) says that the US’s real aim is to occupy Iraq because:

1. It takes out of the picture a potential ally for al Qaeda, one with sufficient resources to multiply the militant group’s threat. Whether Iraq has been an ally in the past is immaterial — it is the future that counts. 2. It places U.S. forces in the strategic heart of the Middle East, capable of striking al Qaeda forces whenever U.S. intelligence identifies them. 3. Most important, it allows the United States to bring its strength –conventional forces — to bear on nation-states that are enablers or potential enablers of al Qaeda. This would undermine strategically one of the pillars of al Qaeda’s
capabilities: the willingness of established regimes to ignore al Qaeda operations within their borders.

Most interesting to me is that Stratfor felt the need to come up with a theory to explain the lameness of the Bush administration’s attempts at justifying the war: Bush is left stating ridiculous, unconvincing reasons for going to war with Iraq because no one would support us if W gave the real reasons.

[Thanks to Daniel Berninger for forwarding the email.]

W yesterday, in complaining that the Europeans are too stupid to see what Hussein is up to, said: “This looks like a rerun of a bad movie and I’m not interested in watching it.”

I don’t mean to get all psychological on his ass – well, yes I do – but this is a striking image. W sees a narrative unfolding in which he does not want to participate. It’s a rerun so it’s a memory. What’s the movie he doesn’t want to see? It’s “Poppy the Wuss,” a story in which his dad is publicly humiliated. In getting revenge, W also proves (to himself and to Babs) that he doesn’t suffer from his Dad’s weakness, and that he’s not the second-best son.

Will someone please give Bush a new movie before he gets us all killed?

4 Comments »

The last widow of a Union veteran of the Civil Ward died yesterday.

I did a full-fledged “Huh?” when I read that. I remember as a kid reading about the last people born into slavery dying – a sobering thought – but that was a long time ago. How could a Union widow be with us in the 21st century?

It turns out that Gertrude Janeway died at 93, 60 years after her husband died. She was 18 when she married him, and he was 81. He was 19 when he joined the Union army. She had been receiving a $70 pension check from the Veterans Administration every month.

There is still one Confederate widow alive. She’s 95.

1 Comment »

It looks like the AstroTurfing by the Bush administration has been nailed down: TheInquirer.net seems to have found the source of the river of near-identical letters to various editors: the GOP Team Leader site.

Of course you don’t need the Web to do this sort of thing. But the Web sure makes it easier to track it down.

[Thanks to Chip for the link. And Gary Stock is amusing on the topic.]

Be the first to comment »

The admirable Phil Windley has an essay on the government’s role in issuing digital ID over at the DigitalID World site.

Phil’s perspective is great. As former CIO of Utah, he’s overseen the digital side of a state’s ID program (AKA drivers licenses). In the article he maintains that the government is and should be in the business of managing IDs. (It’s not very tempting to privatize drivers licenses, although I’m sure now I’ll hear from Libertarians telling me why I’m wrong.) Identity “is a foundational piece of almost everything a government does,” Phil argues, spelling out the reasons why. Government should address “three key artifacts” and that’s all: vital records, identity cards, and digital certificates. And that’s all. The ID card would be a smart card so it could be used to authenticate and authorize online transactions.

A couple of points:

First, a smart card doesn’t authenticate me on line the way a drivers license does in the real world. As Phil points out, drivers licenses have s “simple biometric”: a photo of the holder. Hacked or stolen smart cards lack that important feature. So, a smart card system would add a level of security but would be far from foolproof. The question is: Why do we need this new level of ID? Given the possibility of abuse both by criminals and over-zealous government security departments (Are you listening, John Poindexter? Oh, yeah, of course you are. I forgot.), what benefits do we get in return? Where’s the user-demand?

Second, I’m surprisingly ok with the idea of a national ID card system because it seems to me that we already have one — drivers licenses, birth certificates, and social security numbers — that doesn’t work very well. So, I don’t feel much need to fight the ID cards that are probably in our future. I do want to fight the widespread use and abuse of them. I don’t need to use my drivers license to buy anything now except liquor, guns, and boarding passes. That’s already one too many. So, give me my ID card if you must, but you better have damn good reasons for making me show it to you.

Or, in the form of a bumpersticker:

Mitch has trenchant comments on Phil’s piece. And thanks to Eric for pointing itlope.

3 Comments »

Jim Law points us to a BBC news report that says that the UK government has opened up more spectrum for wireless networks.

I vie, you vie, we all vie for Wi-Fi!

Be the first to comment »

I’m off to Senator Kerry’s office where I’m participating in the set of meetings arranged by MoveOn.org. They’ve got 9,000+ constituents going to 500+ congressional offices today to urge our representatives not to rush into war with Iraq. I’m actually the local PR coordinator, so I have to go put on my plaid pants and seersucker jacket, pommade my hair and pick up some cheap cigars.

Tonight is the last session of my mini-course at MIT. We’re talking about what makes the real world so damn real. It’s 7-9 in Building 1, room 390.

3 Comments »

Getting good reaction to the FAQ on Open Spectrum I wrote with content from Dewayne Hendricks, David Reed and Jock Gill. So far, it’s been blogged by Cory Doctorow, Dan Gillmor, Eric Norlin, and Dave Winer. And I haven’t checked this morning’s blogiverse yet.

Open Spectrum is important and not on enough radar screens yet. Spread the meme!

6 Comments »