

Five Easy Pieces of Online Identity - hornokplease
http://evhead.com/2011/04/five-easy-pieces-of-online-identity.html

======
tptacek
His first three concepts already have names: authentication/authorization
(he's conflated here), non-repudiability, and availability. The last two
topics seem like applications and not properties of identity.

I think you could solve all of "2" - "5" given a workable solution for "1" ---
that is to say, if everyone could agree on an Internetwide scalable
authentication system, the other benefits of identity could be built
organically around that kernel. But scalable authentication is a galactically
complicated political problem involving virtually every single one of the
largest technology companies in the world.

~~~
staunch
At the end of the post he did write _"From a technical perspective,
authentication defines who someone is and authorization defines what they have
permission to do. However, I didn't find that terminology useful for my
purposes here."_

~~~
tptacek
Was that there an hour ago? I'm surprised I missed it.

~~~
andrewpbrett
It was not there an hour ago - I would like to think that I was the impetus,
as I saw it right when he posted and immediately replied:
<https://twitter.com/#!/andrewpbrett/status/56503853184598016>

------
jerf
I'd add a sixth component, something like "Which role do you want to play?"
jerf-the-HN-participant partially exists to lead a life sharded from jerf-the-
family-member or jerf-the-employee. The oil-and-water metaphor for those roles
I have is particularly apt, in that it doesn't particularly take effort for me
to keep them separate because they actively avoid mixing naturally on their
own, but I can't use(/refuse to use) a system like Facebook that insists on
mixing them anyhow. The ability of the Internet to facilitate this is an
important aspect it has and I don't want to see us give it up.

------
bugsy
"Every Internet service that has a concept of users has to deal with
identity."

We have users and customers and we don't care who they are. Customers we care
if their money is good.

The idea of validated internet identity for things outside of banking/finance
and voting is a complete sham.

These companies screaming for identity know perfectly well they are lying to
their customers. What they are really interested in is monitoring people and
selling information about their habits to marketers.

------
erikpukinskis
If anyone is interested in this stuff, there is a classic presentation on this
subject Dick Hardt did back in 2005 that really digs into a lot of these
different aspects of identity (albeit from an Open Source perspective):
<http://www.identity20.com/media/OSCON2005/>

It also happens to use the brilliant Lessig Style of presentation, which is
always fun to watch.

------
KonkaNok
The first thing I think of in reference to online "reputation" is forums.

Daniweb's a pretty good example - post count, up-vote count, solved threads
and reputation points which determine a user's power to affect other people's
reputations.

------
kasperset
CRAPR?

~~~
kasperset
Why does he write that in BOLD at the end?

