Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy Security The Internet United States News Your Rights Online

Obama Eyeing Internet ID For Americans 487

Posted by Soulskill
from the anti-troll-doctrine dept.
Pickens writes "CBS News reports that the Obama administration is currently drafting the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which will be released by the president in the next few months. 'We are not talking about a national ID card,' says Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, whose department will be in charge of the program. '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.' Although details have not been finalized, the 'trusted identity' may take the form of a smart card or digital certificate that would prove online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions. White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt says that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. 'I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to,' says Schmidt. There's no chance that 'a centralized database will emerge,' and 'we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Eyeing Internet ID For Americans

Comments Filter:
  • how about no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trolman (648780) * on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:13AM (#34803760) Journal
    This Internet ID scheme has been floated a couple of times now and it is not going to happen. The Federal Government like big companies and big programs aka Comcast/NBC, Net Control(net neutrality) and National Healthcare. It is about controlling the most people with the least effort. This is no different than requiring me to 'show my papers.' All of this really needs to stop. --If the feds need something to do they could start by implementing IPv6 and getting everyone an IP address.
    • Re:how about no (Score:5, Interesting)

      by transami (202700) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:29AM (#34803872) Homepage

      "If the feds need something to do they could start by implementing IPv6 and getting everyone an IP address."

      +1 (x 2^128)

      • Re:how about no (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lawrence_Bird (67278) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:53AM (#34804034) Homepage
        exactly. typical nannystatery, looking to solve a problem that does not exist with a government sponsored effort. And who for a moment doesn't think that this would carry advantages for the 3 letter boys and girls?
        • by gandhi_2 (1108023) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @01:37PM (#34805354) Homepage

          Problem that doesn't exist????

          You don't get it. This could solve child porn, terrorism, and free expression in one shot!

    • Re:how about no (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arivanov (12034) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:42AM (#34803948) Homepage

      Typical American paranoia. Not that UK is much better.

      Anyway, I have had a Bulgarian digital ID for nearly 4 years now. It is privately run - there are several companies which have been licensed to issue the certificates and they issue certs/smartcards to individuals and businesses. The govmint has nothing to do with it besides being obliged by law to accept a smartcard signed electronic document as a valid signature in any form of communication. I can sign a contract, sign my tax return, sell/buy stuff that requires a signed contract, give instructions to my bank and all of these are _EQUALLY_ legally binding to me showing up with a passport/ID and signing it in person. On top of that most cert authorities and smartcards fully support Linux at least on x86 so you do not even need to pay MSFT tax to use it.

      On the negative side, banks, etc have been pretty quick on the uptake that this is an acknowledged and transactions are legally binding so you cannot do any electronic banking without it any more.

      In any case - an example where "technological backwater" "undeveloped" "fifth world economy" and "third rate democracy" (all are labels which BG has had in USA press at various times) shows how this _CAN_ be run as a useful tool for individuals and companies to do business without the govmint having anything to do with it besides collecting some license revenue.

      • Re:how about no (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:55AM (#34804042)

        Yeah, typical paranoia. You write: "you cannot do any electronic banking without it any more." "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," says Schmidt. Of course the government will not make a central database when it gets tax return files signed by everyone in the country. No, certainly not. How stupid do you and the government think we are?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Typical American paranoia. Not that UK is much better.

        Anyway, I have had a Bulgarian digital ID for nearly 4 years now. It is privately run - there are several companies which have been licensed to issue the certificates and they issue certs/smartcards to individuals and businesses. The govmint has nothing to do with it besides being obliged by law to accept a smartcard signed electronic document as a valid signature in any form of communication. I can sign a contract, sign my tax return, sell/buy stuff that requires a signed contract, give instructions to my bank and all of these are _EQUALLY_ legally binding to me showing up with a passport/ID and signing it in person. On top of that most cert authorities and smartcards fully support Linux at least on x86 so you do not even need to pay MSFT tax to use it.

        On the negative side, banks, etc have been pretty quick on the uptake that this is an acknowledged and transactions are legally binding so you cannot do any electronic banking without it any more.

        In any case - an example where "technological backwater" "undeveloped" "fifth world economy" and "third rate democracy" (all are labels which BG has had in USA press at various times) shows how this _CAN_ be run as a useful tool for individuals and companies to do business without the govmint having anything to do with it besides collecting some license revenue.

        So if the smartcard was spoofed, we'd be right fucked, huh.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Typical American paranoia.

        There may be countries where the government is trustworthy enough to allow this. But the United States isn't one of them.

        • Re:how about no (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Culture20 (968837) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:17AM (#34804208)

          Typical American paranoia.

          There may be countries where the government is trustworthy enough to allow this. But the United States isn't one of them.

          In fact, the government was set up to not trust itself. The framers of the constitution didn't trust the government they were creating, so they crafted it to be full of gridlock.

          • by sorak (246725)


            Typical American paranoia.

            There may be countries where the government is trustworthy enough to allow this. But the United States isn't one of them.

            In fact, the government was set up to not trust itself. The framers of the constitution didn't trust the government they were creating, so they crafted it to be full of gridlock.

            There is a big difference between "checks and balances" and "gridlock". I don't know how they would feel about the hyper partisanship and gridlock we see today.

      • Re:how about no (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Seumas (6865) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:01AM (#34804080)

        I'm sure Bulgaria has absolutely no political corruption and that everyone in the government is absolutely trustworthy and that there is and was absolutely nothing shady about the selection of the private entity (yay, another government utility monopoly!) to provide the services and that there are absolutely no questionable connections between government officials and the selected company, just like there are no relations in America between officials and the selection of companies like Haliburton, L-3, and various FDA fast-tracks, either.

        I don't know a lot about Bulgaria, but Americans and Brits tend not to like to be identified and monitored, though their government and the stupider sheep among the population constantly do everything they can to undermine this desire. It's abhorrent enough that our SS# has gone from being something you ONLY provide to your employer to set aside SS tax in your account and to the government when you're ready to withdraw and has instead come to be used to get a driver's license, create a cell phone account, cable account, internet account, bank account, blockbuster rental account, etc.

        Let's either value privacy and autonomy or throw up our hands and quit this charade and go full bore into fully complying with all wishes and desire of the motherland.

      • It is one thing to buy a digital certificate from a company and quite another to have one "issued" by your government. You say typical American paranoia, but give me one instance where the American government did not abuse its power and overstep its rights while trying to provide "service" to its people. There are countless examples today, nanny camera's, Social Security number, drones for fucks sake. The list goes on. Read the Patriot Act, this would be a sweet deal for government to be able to impleme
      • by ultranova (717540)

        Anyway, I have had a Bulgarian digital ID for nearly 4 years now. It is privately run - there are several companies which have been licensed to issue the certificates and they issue certs/smartcards to individuals and businesses. The govmint has nothing to do with it besides being obliged by law to accept a smartcard signed electronic document as a valid signature in any form of communication.

        These facts, when combined, make me uneasy. Who bears the responsibility if a private ID issuer makes a mistake and

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I stopped reading when I encountered "govmint".

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sure trying to improve the lousiest health care system of any western democracy fits like a glove with authoritarian privacy concerns. You have to make up your mind are mega corporations benevolent benefactors, while the government is an authoritarian nightmare, or it the other way around. You can't have it both ways. Personally I think each is a little bit of both, but when it comes to my health, I'd rather my insurance be run by a bureaucrat tasked with initiatives to improve the standards of living on a

    • Re:how about no (Score:5, Informative)

      by hedwards (940851) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @12:29PM (#34804806)
      National Healthcare is about controlling people?

      Two questions, what have you been smoking? And where can I get some?

      The Internet ID is genuinely that bad an idea, as is failing to provide real net neutrality rules, but you've got to be high if you think that national health care is some sort of infringement on your rights. There are exemptions baked into it for people that genuinely can't afford it or have religious objections to it.
  • Slight conundrum? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chas (5144) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:15AM (#34803766) Homepage Journal

    We will be enhancing your privacy and security.
      By making you more uniquely identifiable and creating a single point of failure for the security method.

    *HEADDESK*

  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:15AM (#34803774)
    There is no chance that a centralized database will emerge, unless of course this catches on, in which case a centralized database will be necessary to address abuses.
  • by newcastlejon (1483695) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:17AM (#34803784)

    OK, fine. But you should know that my credit card company are already happy that I am who I claim to be (and that I pay my bill on time, natch) and my bank have already given me a free security token. Oh, and I have no problem with remembering a few different passwords so thanks, but no thanks.

    To be honest, I'm more interested in whether this Schmidt fellow even knows what a smartcard or CA is. I doubt he could be more ignorant than that fool in France that started the OO.org is a firewall thing though.

    • by gilesjuk (604902)

      Indeed. A central point of failure is never a good thing.

      Just like a biometric ID card is a bad idea too. Until you have on there is the risk that someone registers one in your name. Then you have a really hard time to prove that this person is not you.

    • by sloth jr (88200)
      Given that the US has mandated PKI using SmartCards for 6+ years now, yes, Schmidt knows what a CA and a smartcard is.

      It's good that your bank provides you a security token; the proposed initiative is a good one, and lays out a common strategy for something-you-have authentication that can then be potentially used in a much wider variety of venues than your bank.

      Expect this to become part of the PCI standard.
      • lays out a common strategy for something-you-have authentication that can then be potentially used in a much wider variety of venues than your bank.

        You mean, like credit cards?

        We already have something-you-have authentication for any situation that NEEDS authentication.

        And I'd rather NOT be authenticated in all other situations.

        • something-you-have authentication

          You mean, like credit cards?

          Credit cards are often used in card-not-present situations such as telephone or online purchases. The account number, expiration date, CVV2 number, and billing address aren't something you have; they're something you know. They're only something you have if a retailer has a policy of no gift shipments, in which all shipments are to the billing address.

    • OK, fine. But you should know that my credit card company are already happy that I am who I claim to be (and that I pay my bill on time, natch) and my bank have already given me a free security token. Oh, and I have no problem with remembering a few different passwords so thanks, but no thanks.

      To be honest, I'm more interested in whether this Schmidt fellow even knows what a smartcard or CA is. I doubt he could be more ignorant than that fool in France that started the OO.org is a firewall thing though.

      I'm feeling a bit cynical tonight so I suspect you forgot "to think of the children". Besides the last time I heard that (last year) it was a twerp from Microsoft advising our department of insane internet censorship that we need internet drivers licenses - which is of course, a completely different thing.

  • Surely if this was a good idea, individuals and companies would create it and administer it on their own. Do we really need the government to tell us how to implement our systems? ...could tax money not be better spent on other things?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by g0hare (565322)
      Oh, probably standardization and compatibility with government systems, if the government is going to accept the ID.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      Have you been keeping up with events? as it turns out most companies can NOT implement systems worth a crap. Creating a standard forces all the companies to use said standard. Left to their own devices most companies wither won't bother or create competing systems that don't work together.

  • Morons. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:20AM (#34803806) Homepage Journal
    anything that can be read by a computer, can be changed or faked, by another computer. those who commit crimes, will be much more able to do it than ordinary citizens.
    • by goodmanj (234846)

      You do realize that a good fraction of the people on this website make a living trying to prove you wrong, don't you?

  • Doesn't this sound a lot like Microsoft's Passport they tried to get traction on a few years ago but failed?
  • A great idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:23AM (#34803816) Homepage Journal

    Digital signatures have been legally equivalent to normal ones for some time now, but where is the accountability? Many have long said the USPS should provide certs; I stand by that idea.

    • Public key crypto is great, but claiming that a digital signature is equivalent to a real signature is asking for trouble. People have convinced CAs to sign certificates that identify them as Bill Gates, and those certificates could be used to generate fraudulent transactions if we moved to such a system. We really should not be reducing the amount of face to face time people spend on finances -- we already reduced it too much.

      To put it another way, how many people get away with cheating on their taxes
  • by Grapplebeam (1892878) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:26AM (#34803844)
    Which they were constantly telling us, "No, it'll only be for the program!" Don't trust these people farther than you can throw them.
  • National ID Please! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jahava (946858) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:28AM (#34803858)

    So when can I get a cryptographically secure national ID card with multi-factor authentication? I'm as much a fan of the government tracking and cataloging me as the next guy, but this isn't exactly a slippery slope; we already have national IDs in the form of social security numbers and driver's licenses: Government-issued numbers required for identification and backed by a central database.

    It's just that the current system is about as poorly-implemented as it can be (and justifiably so, since it was never meant to be used like it is). Not only are SSNs weak, predictable, and easily-forged; there is no way to protect or limit their usage by authoritzed or unauthorized parties. There also no way to protect how those parties store and safeguard them.

    So while I hate the idea of our government issuing IDs, its too late to really change that. But please for the good of every citizen do it right.

    • When social security started, your SSN was supposed to only be for them. It was never "meant" to be a national ID, at least that's what the folks in government said at the time. Yet that's what it has become....funny how that happens.

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      we already have national IDs in the form of social security numbers and driver's licenses: Government-issued numbers required for identification and backed by a central database

      If you want a National ID, get a passport or a passport card.
      But kindly fuck off from insisting on one for every citizen.

      And White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt can doubly get fucked for insisting on creating one for the web.
      Ultimately, the government doesn't need "a" centralized database of trusted identities because they can already dip their fingers into every database that's around.

    • So while I hate the idea of our government issuing IDs, its too late to really change that. But please for the good of every citizen do it right.

      If you hate government IDs, I don't see why you wouldn't like a weak ID implementation. The only thing better than no identification is falsifiable identification. It's true that most anonymity has already been lost, and further security might actually begin to benefit individuals in day-to-day transactions rather than just the government, but it would of course come with government surveillance of day-to-day life.

  • Riiiiiight. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:29AM (#34803868)

    I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to,' says Schmidt.

    Oh sure. Just like I don't have to get a state-issued ID card if I don't want either, right? Except once these gov-sanctioned IDs come into play, they do become standards (even when it's explicitly against the law, like with SSN).

    And they know it. Hey, tell me which candidate it was again who was going to stand up for the little guy?

    • I don't have to get a state-issued ID card if I don't want either, right? Except once these gov-sanctioned IDs come into play, they do become standards

      They will do it like they did with driver licenses, they will say "accessing the internet is not a right, it's a privilege".

      I wonder which part of "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" they didn't understand.

      Or how about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

  • ...outsource it to Facebook.



    Bwa ha ha ha ha!
  • by John Hasler (414242) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:33AM (#34803902) Homepage

    > 'We are not talking about a national ID card,'

    Yes you are.

    > 'I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to,'

    Unless you want want to engage in any sort of non-cash transaction. Of course, if you try to live entirely on cash, you will eventually be accused of "money laundering"...

    > 'There's no chance that 'a centralized database will emerge,'

    No. It will stay hidden.

    > 'we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this.'

    Because that way when things go wrong you can blame the "evil corporations".

  • I would sincerely like the plethora of stupid paper documents I have to deal with reduced to a single wad of data, cryptographically signed by the appropriate gov. dept for each part -

    e.g. - the DMV for the driving license, etc.

    On the proviso that there is NOT a giant central DB tracking it all.

  • by Eil (82413) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:41AM (#34803942) Homepage Journal

    I already have an "Internet ID," it's called my GPG public key.

    • by tagno25 (1518033)

      If only it was able to be used as login info, except you would need something else for security since the public key is public, and the private key should not be transfered to a 3rd party.

      • by laughingcoyote (762272) <barghesthowl.excite@com> on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:16AM (#34804198) Journal

        You could set up a login mechanism using GPG. Wouldn't even be that hard. All you'd have to do is automate the following:

        • My system connects to the host. The host requests my public key, my system sends it (in cleartext, since it is, well, the public key after all).
        • The host encrypts a randomly generated string of characters (the "challenge string") using my public key and sends over the encrypted data, as well as its public key in cleartext.
        • If I have the appropriate private key, my system decrypts the challenge data, re-encrypts it to the host's public key, and resends it. Since the challenge data would be randomly generated every time, there would be no use in saving or intercepting it—the next login would be a different challenge string anyway.
        • The host decrypts the data. If I've returned the right challenge string, it logs me on.
    • I already have an "Internet ID," it's called my GPG public key.

      Signed by whom? With the rise of TSA's so-called "gate rape", not everyone is willing to fly to key signing parties in remote locations.

  • completely unbreakable, unlike every other computer security system that has ever been developed.

    There's no chance that 'a centralized database will emerge'

    Of course not. What government or business would be so crass as to track what people do on the internet?

  • To the Regime: NO (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WCMI92 (592436) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:45AM (#34803966) Homepage

    Get used to that word.

    No you cannot regulate the Internet. No you cannot create national Internet ID, so you can identify and intimidate your critics.

    You cannot do these things because the courts have already said you can't and the new Congress is acting to prevent you from trying.
    Not that this will stop him good fascist Soros sockpuppet he is. 2012 will though.

  • by adosch (1397357) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:47AM (#34803982)

    Dear Obama,

    Thank you for your deep concern of my privacy and security as it relates to my personal financial conduct on "The Internet" and my memory of passwords. I will forever take a rain check to your failed and train wreck attempt to control the public.

  • >"'We are not talking about a national ID card,' says Commerce Secretary Gary Locke"

    Oh really. Just like Social Security numbers would never be used for anything but Social Security. This is a HORRIBLE idea.

  • by ghelleks (613300) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @10:56AM (#34804054)
    Comments on this draft closed in July, and it's been changed since. But this should give you a sense of what they're actually proposing. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf [dhs.gov]
    • I sifted through it. It cites identity theft and lack of trust as the problems this aims to solve. The problem, in my opinion, lies with financial institutions that can't can't keep our information secure. It's too easy for someone to obtain credit in someone else's name. I shouldn't have to pay a nominal fee for credit protection or early fraud warning either. There needs to be more accountability and penalties for institutions that breach our trust. An internet ID is just another form of ID for someo
  • by ka9dgx (72702) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:06AM (#34804122) Homepage Journal

    Wow... all of this to stop the internet as a threat from happening. Eliminate anonymity as a possibility on the internet, wait a few years until everyone is complacent, and they use it to mop up any stragglers who don't bend to the will of The Powers That Be.

    Good thing they aren't doing anything to fix the security model we all rely on, which would leave viruses and botnets as a plausable denyability... oh... wait... they are.... "The App Store", which means no local filesystems, and no way to propagate information outside of what is allowed by the OS.

    And then there is the push towards cloud computing, again no local storage.

    We'll be ok... but our kids won't... because they will see local storage as a vulnerability, and shun it at all costs.

    I think this will all play out in 10-20 years...at least I hope it takes that long.

  • You Lie (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Culture20 (968837) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @11:10AM (#34804148)

    'We are not talking about a national ID card,' says Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, whose department will be in charge of the program. 'We are not talking about a government-controlled system'

    You Lie.

  • by BobGregg (89162) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @12:18PM (#34804698) Homepage

    Seriously. Almost nobody commenting here even took five seconds to even think about what was actually being discussed. It's all just knee-jerk "jack boots are coming" nonsense.

    "Internet ID for Americans" - Article title FAIL. This has nothing to do with a government identity of any sort. Nor is it a singular identity, credential, or technology. It's for use in commerce - you know, like OpenID? - but actually standardized so that companies will actually widely accept it. That's why the first sentence of the linked article, the whole point of the news of it, is that the Commerce department would head the effort, not Homeland Security. (Declan McCullagh, I like you, but you should be ashamed.) From the article: "This is not about a national identity card." From these comments: "It's a national identity card!"

    "Single point of failure" - Reading comprehension FAIL. The published strategy talks about setting up an identity trust ecosystem where individuals set up any number of identities and credentials, of their own choosing, possibly using different technologies of use as they see fit. Much like the SSL cert ecosystem today provides a means of merchant identification, without there either being a single point of failure or sinister government control.

    "Trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist" - Reality-check FAIL. I just don't know what planet you're from. If you're saying that identity theft on the Internet isn't a major concern, then you're seriously misinformed. It costs our economy millions, if not billions, in lost productivity and fraud. That's a valid government concern - making sure that economic activity can take place safely and thrive.

    For frack's sake, the same people who were screaming about how Microsoft Passport was a bad idea (and it was, because it was monopoly-controlled) are now saying the free market should solve the problem. Or, you know, that there's actually no problem at all. No wonder it's so hard to get anything done in this country.

    Having a national strategy to push towards building a real trust infrastructure is a GOOD idea. Reduces costs, reduces redundancy and waste, IMPROVES security on the Web. Trust infrastructure GOOD. Psycho spasmodic knee-jerk Fox-News "Govmint bad" reactions with no forethought BAD.

  • by Sloppy (14984) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @12:35PM (#34804856) Homepage Journal

    And people decided not to use it. Raise your hand if you have an OpenPGP key and it's been signed by a lot of people (i.e. an identity, certified by multiple parties such that non-distributed systems seem like a joke in comparison). Ok, put down your hands; I was asking in the wrong place. Most people don't put up their hand here, so nobody builds upon the system.

  • by Tom (822) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @01:33PM (#34805330) Homepage Journal

    There's no chance that 'a centralized database will emerge,' and 'we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this.'"

    Uh, no?

    Identity one area I would very much love to have in the hands of government.

    Why? Because if you put it into the hands of a "private sector" entity, that almost certainly means a commercial entity, which means if it finds a way to make a profit from your data, it will. Or, in other words, it isn't your data anymore, it is theirs. Thank you, but no thanks. I prefer to have an identity instead of renting it.

    Sure, there are all kinds of other dangers with the government handling this stuff. But if you are more afraid of the government than of private corporations, you've not been getting the news for the past 20 years, have you?

  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @02:39PM (#34805720)

    Every corporation will start to use this system and that will turn what was a "enhancement to security" into a "Standard required to access any internet service"

    First they tell you its just to help, then they own you.

    Fuck the national ID, internet ID.... how about fucking universal single payer not for profit health care?

    Fuck both of these parties. Fuck Obama.. fuck Bhoener... fuck them all.

  • Hahahahahaha!!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SecurityGuy (217807) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @02:58PM (#34805840)

    They don't even have single sign on for their OWN systems, and they think they're the right entity to create it for 300 million people? That's hilarious. This will be a $100 billion project that will never actually meet its goals.

    Thanks, but no thanks. I actually WANT different passwords on my accounts. I don't WANT my facebook account to unlock my bank, or my slashdot password to unlock my facebook account.

    I'm sorry, but if you really want this, you want someone else to do it. If you're smart, you won't want anyone to do it, or at the least, you want opt out.

The best way to avoid responsibility is to say, "I've got responsibilities."

Working...