Secure digital identities for Web users

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

... They're talking about ways to protect rights-holders. That's all. These Big Brother personal paranoia delusions aren't helping.

Why should the personal liberties of society be so significantly threatened, to protect rights-holders.

The market works pretty well: at some optimum price the seller will realize sufficient profit to stay in the business, and a majority of interested potential purchasers will pay for the product. As you move the price higher, less and less interested potential purchasers will pay for the product - some will chose an alternative, others will "pirate."

Many rights-holders would love the government to protect their monopoly at any cost, so that they can maximize their profit. I am sure some would support eye-gouging for "piracy."

But why would anyone reasonable be surprised that many of us find such scheme noxious?

And, as someone else pointed out, this is not intended to help Steve Jordan, but rather Disney and Time Warner.

[DawnFalcon]

nomesque - A corporation or even a non-profit has to comply with logging and data retention laws, etc.

A government handling this, with a no-logging policy, is the only feasible way...

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by nomesque

*boggle*

Wanna hear something funny? I suggested something similar to my boss's boss a year or two ago. It's coming into being sometime next year. Maybe the collapse of free civilisation will be - ALL MY FAULT! (PS. I suspect it was in the works long before I suggested it, but why let facts ruin a good story?)

Of course, I work in data security, and we're trying to help people avoid a plethora of different security tokens by letting them link the same one to multiple website accounts (say, internet banking, WoW and Amazon). Our software wouldn't track anyone, though - it's something other sites would link to, check credentials, then authorise the person.

But hey, maybe your government IS doing something incredibly dodgy. *shrug*

It is your fault. At some time in the future you'll find yourself back before you thought of this scheme selling out humanity for a better self future tomorrow. Clear?

So lets say the problem is users using simple passwords. If you make them use complex passwords they just write it down somewhere. Next you try card swip/prox cards. No good, the cards are lost or borrowed. Combo of password and card? Same as before. Biometric? How many computers do you have to logon to? I have a lot of them.

RFID implants may be the easiest. But I sure do hope no one wants to cut it out of me to access the computers I work with.

And the computers will the have to comply with NSTISSAM TEMPEST/1-92 or whatever they use today.

[fishface]

I hate how simple login management is being conflated with identity binding. They're completely independent problems. Identity binding is neither sufficient nor necessary for authentication management.

[fishface]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

When it comes to digital piracy what flummoxes the casual user isn't really relevant, since all that's needed is for one user to break the protection and distribute the unlocked content.

Nice observation. I'm starting to see now how DRM is a nonstarter.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Name one.

Cable.

(Hey, this simple answer stuff is fun!)

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Cable.

(Hey, this simple answer stuff is fun!)

Huh, I can buy a $100 TV tuner card and rip tv shows to my hearts content. Have you ever tried doing a search for pirated TV shows?

[fishface]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Huh, I can buy a $100 TV tuner card and rip tv shows to my hearts content. Have you ever tried doing a search for pirated TV shows?

What about digital watermarking? I'm not familiar with the research.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Why should the personal liberties of society be so significantly threatened, to protect rights-holders.

Mmm... because society takes advantage of rights-holders, to the point of removing any incentive to create for society, without some protections. IOW, if I create something, and all you have to do is knock me over the head and take it, why should I bother?

(And, of course, "rights-holders" are clearly not members of society in this argument, so I guess their protection doesn't count...)

Originally Posted by Sonist

The market works pretty well: at some optimum price the seller will realize sufficient profit to stay in the business, and a majority of interested potential purchasers will pay for the product. As you move the price higher, less and less interested potential purchasers will pay for the product - some will chose an alternative, others will "pirate."

Many rights-holders would love the government to protect their monopoly at any cost, so that they can maximize their profit. I am sure some would support eye-gouging for "piracy."

But why would anyone reasonable be surprised that many of us find such scheme noxious?

And, as someone else pointed out, this is not intended to help Steve Jordan, but rather Disney and Time Warner.

Presently, a great deal of copywritten property like music and ebooks (including my own) are selling for lower amounts than they've sold for as physical entities... prices have stabilized or come down, yet still, "society" takes the creations and pirates them without paying for them.

Clearly the "market" is stealing simply because they know they can get away with it, and only supporting laws that will continue to let them do so. Their real issue is only one thing: They don't want to have to pay for stuff they want. All the Big Brother nonsense is just trying to scare the masses (and obviously doing a good job of it, too).

But that's just my take.

At any rate, maybe the government's "incentive" for these laws is Disney and Time Warner... and let's just say they don't deserve to have their property protected by law... but does that mean I don't deserve protection of my property, for the same reason? Do I deserve to be crushed under the boot that would grind them into the dirt?

Am I not considered a valued member of society, deserving of its protections just like anyone else? And since "society" is not giving me those protections, is it not fair to create laws that protect my rights, just as laws are created to protect the disadvantaged, the challenged, and the innocent?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by fishface

What about digital watermarking? I'm not familiar with the research.

Digital watermarking is circumventable, a digital watermark is just information stored in redundant areas of a digital file.

Once the algorithm that is used to store that information is reverse engineered/leaked it becomes trivial to take any watermarked file and strip the watermark from it.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Mmm... because society takes advantage of rights-holders, to the point of removing any incentive to create for society, without some protections. IOW, if I create something, and all you have to do is knock me over the head and take it, why should I bother?

(And, of course, "rights-holders" are clearly not members of society in this argument, so I guess their protection doesn't count...)

My gods, if you require incentive and don't feel you have any then just don't create. The rest of us take the risk of someone knocking us over the head and taking out ipods shoes whatever every day. The world can be a hostile place but no one's holding a gun to your head and demanding you write a book paint a picture or compose a song.

[fishface]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Once the algorithm that is used to store that information is reverse engineered/leaked it becomes trivial to take any watermarked file and strip the watermark from it.

What if the algorithm is known but the key is still secret? For example you don't know which low order bits contain the watermark and if you wipe them all out you degrade the image.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by fishface

What if the algorithm is known but the key is still secret? For example you don't know which low order bits contain the watermark and if you wipe them all out you degrade the image.

See above about how it is impossible to keep keys secret.

[fishface]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

See above about how it is impossible to keep keys secret.

Well Verisign's CA signing key has, to my knowledge, never been leaked. That's maybe an extreme case, because they guard that key with incredibly multiple-redundant security procedures that seem appropriate for nuclear launch codes.

[kovidgoyal]

Wait, why is there a key involved in watermarking at all? A watermark is created pre distribution, by some fixed algorithm. The algorithm has to be fixed, otherwise there is no way to recover the watermark from the file.