According to an article by Joris Evers in Infoworld on Oct. 20, Microsoft has dropped its o’erweening ambitions for Passport. Instead of being the “single sign-on for the Web,” it’s now going to be a service for Microsoft and the few partners who had signed up to use the service. Says the article:

In 1999, the Redmond, Washington-based company envisioned thousands of online stores and other services using Passport, allowing users to sign on using the same user name and password combination used for Microsoft services. But the reality turned out different, as Web site operators balked at the idea of having Microsoft control access to their sites. Aside from Microsoft-owned sites only a few dozen others signed on to Passport…

“Going forward, the mission of the Microsoft Passport service will be to provide authentication services to Microsoft services and products and to Microsoft partners,” she [Brooke Richardson, lead product manager for MSN] said late Tuesday.

This is good news because it means Microsoft will not become the de facto repository of your digital ID. It may even mean that now I can register for Microsoft products without feeling that I’m adding value to to Microsoft’s attempt to put itself at the heart of every transaction on the Net.

[Thanks to the Digital ID World newsletter for the link.]

1 Comment »

Find a line you care about.

Declare it.

Don’t let them cross it.

Don’t retreat from it.

Repeat for four years.

7 Comments »

The election may not have been stolen — it’s more like it was beaten out of us with heavy clubs — but we’ve lost some key terms. We need to take them back. Or, if you prefer to be Lakoffian about it, we need to reframe them:

Morality. Already I’ve heard a radio journalist talk about the “morality moms.” You know what? We’re as moral as the people who claim to have voted for Bush for moral reasons. What they really mean is that they voted for Bush for fundamentalist religious reasons. Let’s call ’em “intolerant moms” instead. How do you like them apples?

War on terrorism. There are very very bad people who want to kill us, and we should kill as many of them as we can. But “war” conveys inappropriate ideas: That there is a stable, unified enemy. That the best way to fight is to use soldiers. That there can be a moment of victory and then peace. Bush uses “war” to justify the diminishment of liberty and economic sacrifice that we expect in real wars, as well as to hold out the false promise that we can someday be safe from bad people doing bad things to us.

Terrorist. A terrorist is someone who tries to achieve a political objective by engaging in heinous acts intended to terrify its victims. Osama is a terrorist. Most of the people fighting us in Iraq are not terrorists. If you don’t like Iraqi insurgents — and who does? — then get yourself a different term because you’re using “terrorist” simply to paper over the yawning lack of justification for launching this awful war.

Homeland. Can we please stop calling our country that? It’s a term that only exists within the war context. And I’m sick of its unsubtle resonance with the Fatherland.

Strength. When it comes to fighting terrorism, strength is overrated. You don’t out-strong terrorists. You out-smart them. When Bush talks about a strong America, he often really means an America that doesn’t listen to anyone else.

Sensitive. Cheney uses “sensitive” to mean “you’re a pussy.” In fact it means that you are occasionally influenced by reality. It can even mean that you recognize the inner lives of others. When you cease being sensitive, you are dead. Literally.

Resolute. Whenever Bush says “resolute,” substitute the word “stupid.” That’s what he means: Not adapting to changes in a complex world. Real resolution — continuing to a goal despite the personal cost and sacrifice — is a word worth keeping.

Civility. I’m all in favor of civility. Real civility. I am not in favor of it when it means “Shut up and assume the position.” When rights are being trampled (excuse me, I mean when we are trading off rights for increased security) and lives are being lost, keeping a civil tongue is treason against morality. (See first entry above.)

Democrat (adj.). Listen, schmucks, the adjectival form of “Democrat” is “Democratic,” as in “the Democratic representative from Colorado.” It is not “Democrat,” even though the Republicans prefer that you use that term so, God forbid, you don’t give anyone the impression that Democrats favor democracy. Either get this right or let’s start talking about the “Republic representative from Louisiana.”

26 Comments »

From Joseph Price comes this photo of his local polling place in Provo, Utah, which happens to be in a museum of taxidermy.

(Helpful Hint: Don’t ever order the pot pie in a museum of taxidermy’s cafeteria.)

5 Comments »

I believe I’m echoing something Halley wrote months ago, and I see that Jarvis blogged something about this yesterday, but: I don’t believe there is any idea powerful enough to displace the Republican meme that they are saving our children from dusky-hued terrorists. The obvious alternative is to find a radically center leader whom people trust and who can draw from across the spectrum.

Oprah! Oprah! Oprah!

19 Comments »

Just a reminder that you’re invited to an open discussion of the now laughably depressing topic: The Net’s effect on democracy. It’s part of the series I’m doing for the Berkman Center. It’s at 6pm at Baker House, at 1587 Mass Ave, at Harvard Law (map), from 6-7:15, and there’s free pizza.

Maybe I should rephrase the topic: The election is over but the Internet isn’t. Does that matter?

3 Comments »

12 Comments »

7 Comments »

17 Comments »

When I get back from voting, I really look forward to reading Rebecca MacKinnon’s article on what’s wrong with CNN. Rebecca was a CNN bureau chief and now is a blogomaniac (um, I mean a thought-leader on blogging and journalism), so this should be good…

1 Comment »