Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

[Baclava]

STANFORD, Calif.--President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

[snips]

It's "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said. The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.

The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months.

"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "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." The Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project, Locke said.

Details about the "trusted identity" project are remarkably scarce. Last year's announcement referenced a possible forthcoming smart card or digital certificate that would prove that online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html

----------------

wtf? Is this real?

What if I don't want one?

[Autumn]

1. It's going to be hard to live without the internet

I will miss it.

[Baclava]

14. There is no way I'm letting Skynet become aware of my SSN and credit card number.

maybe thats just me

[phleshdef]

44. LOL, right because your SSN and your credit card number isn't ALREADY on a mixture of government....

...and bank databases.

The government has your social security number and I imagine you had to provide that social security number in order to get a credit card or bank account, so whoever you have that with has your credit card number and your social security number together. And that information is already tied in with all the major credit reporting agencies.

If you don't want to be in the system, you better close your bank account, burn your credit cards and stop applying for... well anything. The fact is, if the government was using computers when you were born, then your SSN has ALWAYS been in the system. And if not, then it went into the system whenever they started moving to digital formats for SSN related information.

"Skynet" is already aware of it all, and theres absolutely nothing you can do about it.

[DeathToTheOil]

63. Resistence is Futile

[Bonobo]

2. More corporate welfare. What could go wrong? nt

[Ohio Joe]

3. Then you don't get one

Certainly there are still details to be released but it does not appear anyone is going to be forced to do this from the article.

[JackRiddler]

15. Sure, no more than they're forced to have a phone or a car...

Or a computer. Or a bank account. Or use cash money. Or pay the rent.

But if companies and employers and state agencies and ISPs all start demanding to see your government-issued Internet ID, then it will become a virtual necessity, like all of the above.

[Ohio Joe]

23. I could see companies liking this for internet purchases/payments

I could even see it being a useful thing there for people who buy or do financial transactions over the internet. It's not something I do though, I was never a fan of the whole buying something sight unseen thing or giving anyone access to my bank accounts. I can't see anyone else making it manditory.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the other items you mentioned... or what even all of them have to do with each other. You can get by easily without any of them, plenty of people have and do. You just don't want to do without the convience of them.

[JackRiddler]

32. Right now I have the convenience of them without needing a govt ID.

If you're doing any kind of competitive business nowadays that involves getting a lot of registrations and permits and insurance certificates (example: film production), it's not really a convenience but a necessity to transact on the Web. If these agencies and corporations start demanding an Internet ID, that is what you will have to get. Jobs will require it. It will become a standard, like expecting everyone to have a drivers license. It will not make things more convenient or secure than today, but it will help in creating ever more centralized databases of all that we do and give leverage for enforcement measures (commit a violation, lose your license).

[Ohio Joe]

34. A new type of manditory ID like this would make that much harder

Assuming this did become manditory, it just becomes another data item to keep track of. If the intent was to centralize everything, this is a bad approach. It would be a much better one to simply make a national ID and get rid of all the others. Makes no sense.

[sabrina 1]

45. I buy things on the Internet and choose for myself who I trust with that information. There is

no need for this. The internet is working fine the way it is.

I cannot believe that anyone would even consider supporting this. What next? You will need insurance and a license to be able to log on? And the next thing we'll be told is 'logging on to the internet is a privilege, it's not a right'.

One way to keep poor people off the Internet. I'd like to hear what Al Gore has to say about this draconian suggestion. Let's hope there is enough outrage that they decide to drop it.

[Dokkie]

85. Hmm, is someone

asking for a Somalia in america? Its just a stupid internet Identification. What could go wrong with it?

[MrCoffee]

100. A Somalia in America?

I don't understand that reference. What do you mean?

[limpyhobbler]

17. It might not be forced but if you don't have one will you lose access to important things?

I wonder if it will end up bneing one of those informal requirements. Like having a credit card, a checking account, giving out your social security number.

[phleshdef]

52. Those informal requirements are already required to access many thing on the internet....

...at least payment for the internet service and ordering products and accessing your bank/credit info online and accessing any sites you use a credit card to pay for. And those things are already tied to your identity.

[Solly Mack]

4. and CAC cards for all

[Zalatix]

5. Then you're a terrorist, or a bad netizen.

People without these "trusted identities" will be banned from Facebook, and every other major online medium and forum.

[Baclava]

18. "offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions"

I do all my banking on-line.

Licking stamps is the dark ages.

I hate this idea.

[Zalatix]

20. It won't stop there. No way, no how.

[eShirl]

29. In "Max Headroom" they were called Blanks.

[cyberpj]

109. I'm old enough AND geeky enough to remember Max - and your clip is perfect! nt

[phleshdef]

53. Yea, and then Obama will make everyone take his mark, 666 ya know.

Someone please shoot me. This place is turning into Glen Beckistan.

[paulk]

97. such shallow hyperbole

does not make your case.

it detracts from it

[phleshdef]

98. No, the kind of shit being bloviated in this thread is about the intellectual equivalent of that.

[paulk]

99. and you've argued that point so well

[phleshdef]

101. I don't post to impress you. I could care less if you think I'm making a powerful argument.

[paulk]

105. another completely shallow post

I'm putting you on ignore

you have nothing to say

[phleshdef]

107. No skin off mine.

[Duer 157099]

6. Good. So when they steal your identity, they really get a windfall

Sounds like a good plan, centralize all of your identity into one hackable place, cool.

[TheKentuckian]

40. The audaciousness of the lies is a reason for serious concern.

Our privacy and security?

What the hell kind of bullmess are they shoveling at us? I like my lies on the theoretically possible side.

[MADem]

7. That won't work. Hackers will steal 'em, quick as a wink.

It's just a bullshit idea. Unless it's tied to biometrics and real-time interaction, fuggedaboutit.

What happens when someone rips off your "trusted" identity? Then you're really screwed.

[Dawson Leery]

8. One password for all accounts belonging to a single user.

Nothing can go wrong with this.

[JJW]

9. Fantastic

My very own concentration camp number.

[Skip Intro]

10. Well as long as it's not a repub doing it it must be A-OK! nt

[Earth_First]

27. Yep! n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

68. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[Puzzledtraveller]

76. frightening too

[City Lights]

70. !

[quinnox]

11. Damn, please stop with the big brother bullshit Obama administration

It is starting to really piss me off.

[DJ13]

12. This sounds like a subset to the awful SOPA legislation

It would be easier to identify violators with a net ID.

This also makes me think the WH believes SOPA is a slamdunk to pass.

[limpyhobbler]

13. It's going to suck.

Seems like they are trying to make the internet more like real life.
So then when people log into google or yahoo email or facebook or whatever, they will present themselves as who they really are, with a verifiable identity.

That way people can be held accountable for what they do online, like downloading music, movies, books or whatever. Downloading music without paying will be the same as walking into Barnes and Noble and taking a CD without paying.

The internet has been kind of lawless like the wild west. Here comes the sheriff. The party's over.

[Better Believe It]

25. "people can be held accountable for what they do online" like writing things the gov't doesn't like.

Way to go!

[Champion Jack]

16. There will be a hack, there always is

[eShirl]

19. What geniuses came up with this brilliant idea?

[gkhouston]

66. Sounds like a brain-child of No Such Agency. n/t

[Odin2005]

21. WTF?

This is insane.

[LadyHawkAZ]

22. He damn well better be "eyeing" it thru crosshairs. n/t

[Adsos Letter]

24. "identity ecosystem"

...sigh...

[Matariki]

26. Fucking doublespeak. I hate it.

"we are talking about enhancing online security and privacy" by violating your privacy

[Canuckistanian]

28. I can't wait for my credit tubes to come in the mail

The only problem is, people can now use my severed hand to unlock them and steal all my money. It happened to my cousin last week.

That bastard President Romney II..... I mean, praise Him, praise Him.

[RC]

30. Another step towards TOTAL Control.

And of course this is about money for our [font size=+3 color=darkcyan face="script"]Ruling Class[/font] also.

I can see a monthly or a yearly or a usage charge for using the internet, on top of the ISP charges.

[phleshdef]

54. There already is a usage charge for the internet and its bundled into the bill you pay your ISP.

Ultimately someone pays to use the damn fiber.

[RC]

71. This is on top of that, yet

Besides ISP's don't all charge the same or the same way.

[phleshdef]

80. The differences in how ISPs charge their customers is irrelevant.

The fact is, ISPs ultimately have to pay for access to the backbone. There may be a few levels in the ladder before it makes its way to the government, but ultimately its included in every cost thats handed down and ultimately is part of every bill for every consumer who pays for internet access. Nothing is free. The internet doesn't magically run itself.

[Occulus]

31. "What if I don't want one?"

Affordable Care Act. Obama does not now and has not ever cared that you don't want junk insurance. You're buying it, or getting fined- for your own good, of course.

This is the exact same idea. My completely legitimate reasons why Obama has, now and forever, lost my second vote for him are steadily mounting.

[RC]

33. But, but, but... He's better than the other guys.

[SammyWinstonJack]

69. Not by much, he isn't. nt

[RC]

72. And that is the problem

[SammyWinstonJack]

73. I agree.

[Deep13]

35. No! nt

[woo me with science]

36. Too angry to express what I am thinking now.

Every day. Every damned day there is a new one.

We are in deep trouble in this country, people, and it is not just Republicans causing it.

Occupy NOW, because they are setting up a structure that will make it impossible to get back our rights once they are gone.

What caused an unholy trinity of Republicans, Democrats and the President to trash the Constitution?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002155232#post15

[whatchamacallit]

37. Awesome! It just keeps getting better and better!

[LetTimmySmoke]

38. I call 24601

War on Drugs, Patriot Act, 4th amendment trampling, NDAA, SOPA, and now this. We are no longer a free country. The founders would be ashamed.

[woolldog]

39. ugh

[AnotherMcIntosh]

92. Potter Stewart, where are you?

[JCMach1]

41. Umm hell no! This is a backdoor National ID, this time being pushed by big media

Just say no!

[phleshdef]

50. Um no, its not a backdoor to a national ID, at all.

Ya'll aren't even reading the article and you are completely mischaracterizing whats being proposed.

[JCMach1]

65. I would really like to keep my privacy thanks without the government intruding online...

Unless we push back against stuff like this and SOPA, we will lose it all.

[phleshdef]

78. What you just said is almost as illogical as "keep your government hands off my Medicare".

Now look, I am against SOPA in its current form. I think its oppressive.

But this proposal here, isn't anything thats a big deal. First off, the government owns the damn internet. The government built the internet. The government has ALWAYS HAD and always will have the kind of access it needs to the internet to do the kinds of things that you are suggesting this proposed ID would do. Where did you think the internet came from? The internet fairy?

Secondly, the proposed ID would be something akin to a smart card that would allow you to more easily inject your identification into websites that require it. It is not anything mandatory. It is something a person could buy, if they wanted the god damn convenience. In practice, its no different than what you do RIGHT NOW when you go online and create accounts, use credit cards, access banking info, file your taxes, etc. Almost all those things require you to create an identity and provide identity related information whenever you do certain things. If you had a smart card that stored your identity, instead of asking you for it directly, your computer would automatically feed that info to that website for you. And thats the extent of it.

A lot of this paranoid BS in this thread is due to people not understanding how stuff works now and thus making uninformed assumptions.

[lpbk2713]

42. And then the next step ...

someone would want to revoke your internet access because they don't like what you post on internet message boards.


Martin Niemoller revisited.

[RainDog]

43. is this someone trying to turn ppl against Obama?

surely his admin knows this will lead to massive reaction, and not in a good way.

open source and internet "self-governance" are what have made the internet a good thing - not some asshole who wants to monitor our buying habits and target ads to us - that's done enough as it is.

I gave up cable tv. I would find it hard to imagine giving up the internet, but I'm sure I could if I had to. but more likely, an alternative to corporate control will compete and no one will choose the corporate internet anymore unless they don't know any better.

this has already been proposed, in fact.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

91. This would cause some to turn against him? As Rahm Emanuel said, where else are they going to go?

Remember,

As they said for 2008:
He's not Hillary Clinton.
He's not McCain.

Now they say:
He's not Gingrich.
He's not Rmoney.
He's not Paul.

He's also not FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, or Bill Clinton.

[KamaAina]

106. Freudian Post O' The Month!

He's not Rmoney.

A simple transposition of two letters reveals precisely what Willard is all about!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

110. That's from unblock.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002147421

I simply claimed "fair use" and then took it.

[phleshdef]

46. I'm sorry but the ridiculous replies in this thread are just AWESOME.

Its like having a phone number in your name or an address in your name or a credit card number in your name or a social security number assigned to you. Every single person in this thread has at least one of those things and probably all of those things. Yet you all think the idea, as described above, somehow makes some different in determining your identity. LOL. I mean the government can already access all this stuff anyway anytime it wants to. They can find out where you live, who you have bank accounts with, anything you can think of. And its been that way for DECADES.

[sabrina 1]

47. So then, what's the problem?? Leave the internet alone. Many people pay to have their numbers NOT

listed. And you think it's okay that the Government already has all this information on people? We should be trying to take that ability away from them, not giving them MORE. Just because you get used to something doesn't mean it's right, does it? People in the Soviet Union got used to being spied on also. We used to think that was a terrible system that needed to end.

Let them try this and see the outrage there will be. Sounds like someone is trying to get people angry at this administration. Time to start the equivalent of the NRA for the Internet before they put cameras on everyone's computers. I guess for some people that would be okay also, after all 'what do you have to hide'?

[phleshdef]

48. LOL. You think unlisting your number hides it from the government?

And unless you are taking some special precautions to obscure your IP address, the government can and always has been able to tie you to activity on the internet. Who the fuck do you think built the internet in the first place?

You don't even know what "this" is that they are trying to do.

You people sound about as wild as the "mark of the beast" fundies. I'm sorry, but its true.

[sabrina 1]

51. It's clear you are okay with government surveillance.

So DUers are: 'You people'. 'Mark of the Beast Fundies'. Wow, once someone resorts to that level of discourse, I guess I understand their support for all this surveillance.

[phleshdef]

57. No. I just don't support people pretending like this provides...

...some sort of additional means of surveillance that doesn't already exist.

Its also very apparent that you have no clue whats actually being proposed. And not just you. A lot of the other knee jerk reactors in this thread as well, going off about conspiratorial batshit loony stuff that is about as intellectually valuable as "rapture" nonsense.

[stevenleser]

103. Sabrina, the NSA has everything right now. The ID they are talking about cant go beyond "everything"

I understand the thought behind this ID. I heard a briefing by a private company that was trying to set something like this up 12 years ago. I also think it wont work for a number of reasons.

But privacy? Internet privacy is long gone and has been since 2002 and possibly before. There is nothing beyond the supercomputers at the NSA. They are able to gather every piece of info out there already.

[sabrina 1]

111. I know sadly, that things have gone so far there is little privacy left. I would like to see an

attempt to reverse some of it, instead of making it even easier for them, though.

I really do not know enough about this ID proposal, but if as you say, it won't work, then hopefully that will be taken into account.

Why would it not work, if you feel like responding? I would like to know more about it.

[stevenleser]

112. Well, for starters...

any kind of ID system proposed like this has relied on Public/Private key authentication/encryption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

These have generally worked because they can implement very hard to break encryption to the order of 256 bits of passwords and the keys being passed back and forth. See this brief discussion on passwords and encryption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password_strength#Bit_strength_threshold

It was thought that encryption of passwords, keys and other items done with 128bit or the higher 256bit would for all practical intents and purposes be unbreakable.

Enter the GPU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit
Most computers have graphics processing units to handle the graphics displays and offload this task from the main CPU. It turns out that these processors are great for breaking encryption and there is ready made software out there to turn GPU's into codebreakers capable of breaking 128 and 256 bit encryption schemes in surprisingly short amounts of time. For an example, see http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/06/01/how-a-cheap-graphics-card-could-crack-your-password-in-under-a-second/ and http://www.elcomsoft.com/edpr.html

So any ID system, which would essentially be a large store of encrypted public/private keys would be a juicy target for any jerk with a small farm of GPUs. I've simplified it a bit so that non-techies would have a chance to understand it, but the point is the same. Any system like this would be vulnerable on day 1.

[RainDog]

56. It's about commerce, not govt n/t

[phleshdef]

60. You can't do commerce NOW over the internet without a credit card.

Though some sites will take a checking account number.

[RainDog]

61. which you can change at will n/t

[phleshdef]

62. So? You still have to provide a social security number to whoever you get a card with...

...which is something that you really can't just change at will.

And that company most assuredly keeps your SSN on file, associated with that credit card.

If someone really has a problem with this, they should be against the entire social security number system and the way it integrates with everything important that one does, otherwise that person is basically a hypocrite, whether they realize it or not.

[RainDog]

64. okay

have a great day!

[phleshdef]

49. You conveniently didn't quote "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to,"

Details about the "trusted identity" project are remarkably scarce. Last year's announcement referenced a possible forthcoming smart card or digital certificate that would prove that online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions.

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

Try reading the whole article next time. Its not at all what you are pretending that it is.

[sabrina 1]

55. Why is it even being discussed?? If anyone can opt out, then what's the point?

Maybe our leaders ought to start paying attention to the job we hired them to do instead constantly thinking of how they can further intrude on the lives of citizens.

I remember Bush's no fly list. Back then the left was outraged over any kind of government intrusion, even the suggestion of it sent the left into a state of revolt. Now, we are so alright with every new intrusion. It's been an education watching the flip flopping on what they claimed were so important back then.

[phleshdef]

58. Its probably being discussed because it would make things a lot more convenient.

Its the same reasons we have addresses and phone numbers. Because it makes fucking sense.

[L0oniX]

79. Shill much for Agent Mike?

[phleshdef]

81. Shill much for people who have no clue what they are talking about?

...which would include most of this thread.

[stevenleser]

104. Loonix, see my 103

[TransitJohn]

59. LOL...getting rid of remembering so many passwords is how they're selling it?

This is total information awareness....CARNIVORE on steroids. Data mining on bigger than Google or Facebook scale, in fact, I'm sure they're in on it, and salivating at getting their hands on the profiles, too.

[lunatica]

67. I wonder how up to date their computers are

And I also wonder why this may be more important than say, fighting the illegality of our voting systems, or protecting the concerted assault on women's hard won rights, or of defending and promoting gay rights, or fighting to achieve alternate sources of generating energy that mitigate the destabilizing climate changes that are already happening.

[GeorgeGist]

74. Siri in the sky with drones ...

Picture yourself on a train in a station,
With plasticine porters with looking glass ties.
Suddenly someone is there at the turnstile,
The girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

[alarimer]

75. NO. Just no.

Leave it alone.

[L0oniX]

77. "enhancing online security and privacy" ...privacy for who?

Another tool for the gov snooper troopers to invade my privacy. They also want to get tax money from sellers ie Ebay and others.

[woo me with science]

82. Well, of course he is.

Occupy.

[Cali_Democrat]

83. No thanks

[Sheepshank]

84. Thousands of elderly being ripped off, daily

I'm currently working with three elderly people that have been internet scammed out of $100K's. It's the sadest most horrifying thing to think how trusting the older generation are. And some have no conscience at all and will do this to venerable adults. How easily the elderly are duped into giving away their life savings to companies that seem to disappear off the face of the planet.

The elderly are in Florida, I'm in Utah. Investment and muliti level scam capital of the USA. Just a little head up for any of you. If you are willing to invest tens of thousands of dollars. Spend $400 and jump on a plane and visit you "newest" found friends!!!! Just do it. If they want your money they should be willing to give you copies of State and City licenses and even copies of their ID's. These are rarely huge huge corporations...they nickle and dime outfits with 2 owners and 3 workers....tops. And the numbers of these types of companies are growing exponentially. It's a huge, huge problem and not going away. They merely morph.

If there was a way to make these scams much more difficult to pull off with the ID ideas, I think I'd be all for it. While I don't think I could get scammed...I will get older and I will become vunerable to the latest tricks. I think there are some possible good things and ID could acheive...but it cannot be via corporate welfare...more along the lines of corporate identity and tracking!

[sabrina 1]

86. Most elderly people are not online. So how would this stop them from being scammed?

[Sheepshank]

93. If you think the trend is that those numbers of elderly on line won't be increasing....

then you'd be wrong...very very wrong.

The most recent rip off, was setting up and elderly gentlyman with the "tools" to create an on line business. The elderly ARE going on line, and we (as current on line consumers) will be the future elderly that ARE and will continue to be on line.

Your comment lacks any foresight whatsoever in the on line demographics.

[sabrina 1]

95. Again, how will this help anyone online?

Eg, an elderly relative received a card in the mail recently, offering him an opportunity to collect money left by someone in his family that had not been collected. For a fee, they would arrange for him to collect it. It looked to him, very legitimate. I looked it up online and as I thought, it was a scam. No internet involved and if he was alone he most likely would have sent the fee.

This is just an excuse, using as always, a 'fear' factor to further erode privacy online. The trend should be to end the abilities they already have to spy on users online, not give them more ways to do so.

[Sheepshank]

96. good lord

didn't you read the whole text of what I wrote? IF this bill creates visibility...it will help, plain and simple

eta....I also clarified that my preferance would be for clear business/corp disclosure. You turning this thought into a fear factor post is beyond the pale and ridiculous.

[fascisthunter]

87. I See Now Why He STudied COnstitutional Law

to find loop holes to take our rights away from us. Idiot!

[aquart]

88. This is disgusting.

[99Forever]

89. Anyone want to buy a computer, cheap?

Ugh.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

90. I've changed my mind. President Obama, you, the MIC, and the int'l corps are doing a great job.

If people have nothing to hide, why should they be concerned?

[aquarius venus]

94. "Enhancing security" my sweet patootee!

Wake up and smell the fascism, people. Don't tombstone the messenger. My emphasis on the danger that is amongst us is important because it's NOW, before it actually comes to pass. Then you won't be able to debate about it at all!

[dembotoz]

102. make way for our chinese masters, heard stories of people needing an internet id to twitter etc.

yes i know it is different but it is also similar

[Taverner]

108. Did Thawte or Verisign give him a huge donation or something????

WTF???

[Honeycombe8]

113. Sounds scary. And when a hacker gets your ID, you lose all protection...

to all your accounts, since you have no separate passwords.