Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

[Nicholas Bohm]

On 11/11/2010 14:35, 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 - 'thin client' to go in your PC has been mentioned, but
> Chatham House Rule applies to the meeting at which the ID of the
> source was mentioned (i.e. I can't say who).
>
> Directgov, however, wants a method just for UK public sector services,
> but the more open concept of making this available to all online
> service providers has been indicated to them. And the US White House
> consulted this summer, asking for ideas for a general method to have
> safe online IDs.

A cynical way of looking at this is that the (UK) Government has failed
in its attempt to get compulsory ID cards, and is now trying to get
together a global alliance of governments and private sector bodies in
order to make it impracticably inconvenient for citizens to do without
the ID they crave.

Even if this cynical view is justified (and it necessarily exaggerates
the extent to which the UK or any other government is of one mind on the
issue), I doubt if it will work.  Only monopolies dare annoy their
customers that much, and there just aren't enough of them to make it
work.  And getting them to agree on how to try is probably too hard anyway.

Nicholas
-- 
Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>