Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

[Ian Batten]

On 11 Nov 10, at 1435, Peter Tomlinson wrote:

> Ian Batten wrote:
>>> However, there are global moves to create a common method to be far more secure online (an eID method) so long as you have your internet transactions secured with a user ID [1] digital certificate that is invoked by some specific action by the end user (e.g. with a password or by plugging in a physical token) at the start of such a session. Once we get that operating...
>>>    
>> The heat death of the universe will occur sooner.  Why would anyone voluntarily sign up for such a scheme, which makes ID cards look positively cuddly?
> You might have to in order to do business with some big, global online retailers 

Yes, because erecting massive hurdles to doing business in no way encourages competitors.  But for companies that don't want to believe that, perhaps they could remind us how Microsoft "Passport" is doing?

One is reminded of Marks and Spencers, who for many years refused to accept credit cards, for a whole range of implausible reasons, and refused to allow you to try clothes on, for similarly implausible reasons.  You had to remember to take a cheque book and have time available to make a return trip if the clothes didn't fit or, alternatively, not go there in the first place.  Over time, more and more people adopted the second approach, finding that the alleged merits of M&S's clothes weren't enough to justify the aggro, and Next, Benetton, BHS and others ate M&S's lunch in their various segments.   Finally, sanity entered the M&S board room, and M&S both found that they _could_ accept credit card and they _could_ have some fitting rooms without the world ending.

A "global online retailer" which won't let you give them money without signing up for an ID card scheme (because that's what it is) will lose business, because there's almost no such company which doesn't have competitors who don't have a death wish.

ian