Secure digital identities for Web users

[Greg Anos]

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...)



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?

Steve, you seem to forget the society GAVE rights-holders their rights. Strictly a construct of the last 300 years or so. And these right were never defines 1. permanent and 2. property. They were/are granted monopolies, with all the problems of monopolies in economics.

In addition what gives such monopoly owners the right to trash the constitution for their private gain. Because, at heart, that's what we're talking about.

[nomesque]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

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?

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

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.

One Time Password. Device-dependent or device-independent (can be done either way). The authentication server behind the access/web server knows the device or software you have, and the password it should be displaying right now for your use.

Is it unbreakable? Hell no. Nothing's 100%. But that's the most common form of authentication I see being implemented recently. Cheaper than biometrics, a lot easier to use than a dozen simple passwords - and a lot harder to hack or intercept.

I don't know what the US govt's looking at. But, for a start, most govt workers wouldn't know the difference between an 'identity' and an 'authentication'. I wouldn't bother getting hot under the collar OR stressed without details on what's actually being planned.

Logging for the sort of system I talked about originally would basically consist of -

Amazon.com initiated authentication request for user nomesque
OTP verified
Authentication-accept sent to Amazon.com

... that sort of information. It wouldn't know, let alone care, what happened afterward. That's Amazon's problem. All it would deal with is the simple, "yes, this login information is consistent".

*shrug* Is that what the US govt is talking about? Probably. Do they know it? I dunno. God knows they could be planning to watch every move you lot make. Gotta build secure jobs somehow

[Sonist]

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....

Actually, rights-holders enjoy historically high profits, primarily because of the same advances in distribution technology they like to blame for facilitating "piracy."

As far as "some protections" go, in a world of balancing interests, "some protections" does not usually include government agents snooping into every transaction conducted by every citizen.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

... 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....

Hm, the Harry Potter books are the most downloaded fiction titles on "darknet," yet J.K. Rowling has managed to become the first billionaire writer in history.

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier, that if a product is sufficiently desirable and priced right, the majority of interested potential purchasers will buy it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Steve, you seem to forget the society GAVE rights-holders their rights. Strictly a construct of the last 300 years or so. And these right were never defines 1. permanent and 2. property. They were/are granted monopolies, with all the problems of monopolies in economics.

In addition what gives such monopoly owners the right to trash the constitution for their private gain. Because, at heart, that's what we're talking about.

Disagree: We're talking about new laws designed to guarantee existing copyright laws are upheld, and NOT trashed. They are being trashed, right now, by those who freely pirate works (like mine). Establishing digital securities identities (or whatever they want to call it) has nothing to do with permanence or monopolies. It has to do with protecting property. And it seems to me, anyone who does not support this addition to the law is telling me "You don't deserve the protections that society gives the rest of its citizens."

Originally Posted by Sonist

Actually, rights-holders enjoy historically high profits, primarily because of the same advances in distribution technology they like to blame for facilitating "piracy."

Ah... so the fact that some rights-holders are "enjoying high profits" (certainly not me) makes stealing okay.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier, that if a product is sufficiently desirable and priced right, the majority of interested potential purchasers will buy it.

And doesn't alter my point that, even if products are desirable and priced right, people do still steal them.

Originally Posted by Sonist

As far as "some protections" go, in a world of balancing interests, "some protections" does not usually include government agents snooping into every transaction conducted by every citizen.

And it doesn't have to now. As I pointed out before, they don't have a strategy yet. Now is the time to help them build one that is fair, equitable, and doesn't freak out all the Big Brother paranoids any more than necessary.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And it seems to me, anyone who does not support this addition to the law is telling me "You don't deserve the protections that society gives the rest of its citizens."

Ah, the appeal to authority. Wondered how long that'd take to come up.

And the "paranoids" as you call them are what I call "sensible".

If you're arguing that the market has failed you, then I'm going to insist on a market failure solution (blanket licence), fyi... and that you're trying to persuade a hard core who are not going to buy anyway, even when you make something accessible, is... futile, and not profitable.

You can try to defend your own profits, but demanding systems which will smash many times as much profit off other industries? I'll fight those.

[BenLee]

Wow, our government has the best team of marketers ever. "Secure digital identities"???

Really??

Thanks, but no thanks.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Ah... so the fact that some rights-holders are "enjoying high profits" (certainly not me) makes stealing okay.

Do you have any hard numbers for how much you personally, or even your publisher, are losing due to those nasty pirates?

[Sonist]

[QUOTE=Steve Jordan;982715]Ah... so the fact that some rights-holders are "enjoying high profits" (certainly not me) makes stealing okay.

No, it just shows that those who produce desirable product still make record profits.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And doesn't alter my point that, even if products are desirable and priced right, people do still steal them.

Well, some people will never buy. But most who download are just not interested enough to purchase. At the same time, some of latter do get converted into future purchasers by a casual download discovery.

As to "stealing" ebooks, one can argue that it goes both ways. A purchaser of a phone from Best Buy can return the phone, if it fails to meet their reasonable expectations. But the purchaser of an ebook does not have such option, even if they give up reading in disgust a third into the book. Did the author/publisher just "steal" the purchase money? Should we have a new law for that?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

... As I pointed out before, they don't have a strategy yet. Now is the time to help them build one that is fair, equitable, and doesn't freak out all the Big Brother paranoids any more than necessary.

Sure there is a strategy in place. It's in Title 17 of the U.S.C..

It's deemed fair and equitable by most of us, except for a few "piracy" paranoids.

[BenLee]

[QUOTE=Sonist;983329]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As to "stealing" ebooks, one can argue that it goes both ways. A purchaser of a phone from Best Buy can return the phone, if it fails to meet their reasonable expectations. But the purchaser of an ebook does not have such option, even if they give up reading in disgust a third into the book. Did the author/publisher just "steal" the purchase money? Should we have a new law for that?

Depends. I know when you purchase "how to" types of books online from independent authors, you often get a refund if you tell them it didn't work for you. This seems the most reasonable for information purchased to achieve a promised result.

Fiction on the other hand...that's difficult. What is the author promising in this case that he/she didn't deliver on? Maybe you can argue that promise was to leave you entertained, but it's still not as straight and clear as the non-fiction case.

[DawnFalcon]

I'd point out that you're often better giving a refund and having someone walk away clean than having a disgruntled ex-customers stuck with your product.

(Admittedly more an issue in games because of price and how it kicks-starts the second hand cycle there, but still)

[BenLee]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'd point out that you're often better giving a refund and having someone walk away clean than having a disgruntled ex-customers stuck with your product.

(Admittedly more an issue in games because of price and how it kicks-starts the second hand cycle there, but still)

You're absolutely right. It's actually better for your marketing too when you can say "satisfaction guaranteed or your money back!" People feel become less risk-averse because much of it has been removed.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Sure there is a strategy in place. It's in Title 17 of the U.S.C..

It's deemed fair and equitable by most of us, except for a few "piracy" paranoids.

That covers copyright. This thread is about secure IDs, which would apply to more than just copyright. (And based on other conversations around here, existing copyright law is actually not considered fair by many MR members.)

[flyash]

It amazes me how much faith people put in government to do the right thing and not abuse its powers. The history of nations is littered with abuse of power. It is a constant danger, and nations that cede too much power to the government are most at risk.

An armed, vigilant and skeptical citizenry is the best protection we have against government abuse of power.

[DawnFalcon]

No, it just leads to people shooting each other.

The governments which fell in Europe fell precisely because nobody raised a weapon. When they did, there was just bloodshed!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by flyash

It amazes me how much faith people put in government to do the right thing and not abuse its powers. The history of nations is littered with abuse of power.

History is also littered with the results of anarchy and lack of social order. Governments are not by definition evil, and condemning them all because of the bad deeds of some isn't fair or reasonable.

Governments do function best with reliable, public oversight... something the worst offenders of governments did/do not have. The U.S., for example, is set up to provide reliable, public oversight in most cases, and when used, has proven to be effective. However, as citizens become more complacent and willing to let others do the heavy lifting for them, oversight has been neglected, and when it is, bad decisions are often made.

So, instead of condemning all governments, we should be condemning the citizens that cede their duty of oversight, and allow the governments to abuse their power...