Robin Wilton's esoterica

       
 
« Previous day (May 31, 2005) | Main | Next day (Jun 1, 2005) »

01 Jun · Wed 2005

The future of network identity..?


I think this is potentially ground-breaking. I'm not normally one for hyperbole... in fact I have to look it up each time I encounter it. But this idea, put forward by Lance Piper, is very interesting. I have noted before that there is a disconnect between the way in which current online systems try to embody 'trust', and the way that concept tends to operate in the 'real' world. I think Lance's idea is a genuinely visionary step towards the way it might work. >

Posted by racingsnake @ 10:36 PM GMT+00:00 [ Comments [2] ]

ID Cards won't stop ID Theft...


In my May 25th post, I promised to revisit the question of why I think the current fad of referring to a UK National ID Card as "a defence against ID theft" is misleading. Recent reports, including this article in the Guardian, have picked up on the following quotation: A recent poll showed that half of people questioned believed ID cards were the best weapon in combating identity theft, which is estimated to cost Britain £1.3bn a year. That's an interesting reflection of public perception, but not a convincing argument for a national ID card. Three forms of ID Theft I have had categorised for me recently, by an authority on the subject, are:
  • - Mass data compromise
  • - Credit card fraud
  • - 'Classic' Identity Theft
The last of these is the case where an attacker gathers enough information about their victim to be able to transact instead of them. Those are the headline cases of "Man has credit refused, discovers he has £48,000 of (someone else's debt". Credit card fraud might be cases of individual theft of cards and PINs, or it might result from mass data compromise. Mass data compromise is the other typical 'headline' ID theft - where an organisation loses hundreds of sets of customer data, including payment details, and these are fraudulently exploited. That data compromise might be electronic or physical... you have probably seen "Theft of laptop exposes thousands of customer accounts" stories. These are indeed the kinds of ID Theft the public express concerns about. But preventing them does not require a National ID card. It might be a good argument for including biometrics in bank-issued cards, but to date the UK banks, at least, seem to be of the view that Chip and PIN is the appropriate response. What it comes down to is this: saying that "ID Cards are good for citizens because they will guard against ID Theft" responds to a popularly-perceived threat: but if the specific kind of ID Theft in question is actually benefit fraud, then the bottom line is that the resulting payback to any given citizen is extremely remote. In fact, on some calculations I would have to pay far more for the compulsory card than I could ever hope to see in the form of a 'prevented benefit fraud' tax rebate. Then there's the question of whether ID Cards would save more in benefit fraud than they would cost to operate. But as long as the Home Office refuses (on grounds of commercial confidentiality) to say what the system will cost, we won't know, will we?
Posted by racingsnake @ 04:57 PM GMT+00:00 [ Comments [1] ]

What does a referendum mean?


It's hard to avoid media reports of the French "Non" last weekend in their referendum on adoption of the draft EU constitution. Here in the UK, our government has yet to confirm whether we will be allowed to vote in a similar referendum. Normally, I am all for the referendum as a tangible way of increasing direct democratic participation, but this example does seem to reveal some real problems. For instance, what does the French "No" vote mean? How should their government react so as to deal with the disagreement it expresses? If anything seems clear, it is that there is no one answer to this - which in turn indicates one of the problems with a referendum. It has to ask a 'closed' question. The only possible answers are Yes or No. There is no "Why?" (to paraphrase a Jedi koan). Thus, there are those who voted "No" in France because they felt the Consititution goes too far in exposing the French economy to the vicissitudes of an "Anglo-Saxon market-driven" model. There are others who voted "No" because they felt it did not go far enough to further the social (and Socialist) ideals of the Union's original founders. It's hard to find a remedy which will satisfy both those camps. Then there are those who voted "No" because they wanted to express a personal dislike for President Chirac, Prime Minister Raffarin or both. Again, it's going to be hard to express that political choice in a French policy on Europe. So what would a 'Yes' or a 'No' mean in the UK (if we were allowed to choose?). I think I can accurately predict that it will be no easier to tell than in the French case. I could vote 'Yes' on pro-European principle, but I don't want that to be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of the UK's current policy on Europe; I could vote 'No' as a protest, but I would not want that to be interpreted as a rejection of collaboration with our European partners in all their valuable diversity. I know... I'll vote for the inclusion of a "Comments" field.
Posted by racingsnake @ 11:25 AM GMT+00:00 [ Comments [2] ]
 
 
 
 
 
« June 2005 »
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today

unsubscribe from human rights abuse in the war on terror
Locations of visitors to this page
Such views as I express in this blog are based on my own opinions, experience and judgements. They do not necessarily represent the policy or views of my employer. It is not my intention to offend readers in any way. If you find anything on this blog offensive, please contact me in the first instance.
Robin Wilton
www.flickr.com

Links to recent entries

[RSS Newsfeed]

Valid XHTML or CSS?

[This is a Roller site]
Theme by Rowell Sotto.
What's this?
 
© racingsnake