Text 1984, 265 rader
Skriven 2005-01-15 21:08:16 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 1977 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Usage history
=========================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_06B8_01C4FB46.55ABEE30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There was an optional wallet service and you are right, this =
additional optional service could not be anonymous. You aren't = comparing
apples to apples if you include the people that made a choice = to use this.
Folks that wanted to be anonymous would not choose this.
Really, this argument is silly. I don't know you but too many people =
I know use the same password on the many sites that require them to = register,
whether they lie or not. Their intent is to have something = that acts like
single sign-in. Now I'm sure the people arguing against =
single sign-in here are not hypocrits and all use distinct unique = usernames,
email addresses, passwords, etc for each and every account = they have. Don't
you?
Rich
"Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message =
news:ldqju0pdbclq8l54fbhi21220l86uibp28@4ax.com...
Well, if you only use Passport as a signin, yes. But there was a =
piece
to it where it would know your credit card information so when you =
used
it to log on to a site where you wanted to buy stuff you wouldn't have
to enter the credit card information. It would be impossible to use
that part and be anonymous.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:09:44 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
<41e30b2c@w3.nls.net>:
> I disagree. Passport is no less anonymous than other signin =
mechanisms. You are in control of the information you provide to create = your
signin. If you want to lie then lie.
>
>Rich
>
> "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in =
message news:c5h4u0p76hl80msc3pis0v1puf9k7erkpn@4ax.com...
> I think he wasn't addressing services claiming they don't =
disclose...
> his message gave examples of people trying to be anonymous... but
> someone trying to be anonymous wouldn't use Passport (unless they =
were
> REALLY stupid) so I'm not quite following the logic either.
>
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:04:25 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
> <41e1720a@w3.nls.net>:
>
> > The fragment you chose to quote is interesting. How many =
services claim that they do not disclose info as required by law?
> >
> > The rest is garbage.
> >
> >Rich
> >
> > "Mike N." <mike@u-spam-u-die.net> wrote in message =
news:e8b2u0hias1bdkdgbe34mf26snbcna0ov4@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:48:12 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote:
> >
> > > If you mean to question what Passport is to Microsoft you =
should use Microsoft's claims about the service
> >
> > http://www.passport.net/Consumer/PrivacyPolicy.asp?lc=3D1033
> >
> > "NET Passport may disclose personal information if required to =
do so by law
> > or in the good-faith belief that such action is necessary to: =
(a) conform
> > to legal requirements or comply with legal process served on =
Microsoft;"
> >
> > This confirms the information I already had. A single signon =
is for
> > convenience, not security. Sure your ISP can see what you're =
doing. They
> > can initiate a wiretap when served by a subpoena. However there =
are many
> > people for which this won't suffice -
> > o terrorists who jump from Cafe to Cafe.
> > o commuters who use wireless internet services from =
Starbucks, at work,
> > airports, etc.
> > o Those who attempt to escape identity by wardriving from open =
wireless
> > to open wireless LAN.
> > Investigators would need to obtain subpoenas from thousands =
of ISPs to
> > cover all activities of a person. Alternatively, assuming that =
.NET is in
> > widespread use, they would just need to subpoena Microsoft to =
get a
> > complete profile of sites where a signon was used, and the IP
> > address/date/time they were accessed from.
> >
> > It still appears that if anyone gets your passport login, =
they can
> > assume your signon, just as if they are you.
------=_NextPart_000_06B8_01C4FB46.55ABEE30
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.3790.1289" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> There was an optional =
wallet service=20
and you are right, this additional optional service could not be=20
anonymous. You aren't comparing apples to apples if you include = the
people=20
that made a choice to use this. Folks that wanted to be anonymous =
would=20
not choose this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Really, this argument is =
silly. =20
I don't know you but too many people I know use the same password on the =
many=20
sites that require them to register, whether they lie or not. = Their
intent=20
is to have something that acts like single sign-in. Now I'm = sure
the=20
people arguing against single sign-in here are not hypocrits and all use =
distinct unique usernames, email addresses, passwords, etc for each and =
every=20
account they have. Don't you?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Ellen K." <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:ldqju0pdbclq8l54fbhi21220l86uibp28@4ax.com">news:ldqju0pdbcl=
q8l54fbhi21220l86uibp28@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>Well,=20
if you only use Passport as a signin, yes. But there was a =
piece<BR>to=20
it where it would know your credit card information so when you =
used<BR>it to=20
log on to a site where you wanted to buy stuff you wouldn't have<BR>to =
enter=20
the credit card information. It would be impossible to =
use<BR>that=20
part and be anonymous.<BR><BR>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:09:44 -0800, =
"Rich"=20
<@> wrote in message<BR><<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:41e30b2c@w3.nls.net">41e30b2c@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR><BR>&=
gt; =20
I disagree. Passport is no less anonymous than other signin=20
mechanisms. You are in control of the information you provide to =
create=20
your signin. If you want to lie then=20
lie.<BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR>> "Ellen K." <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:c5h4u0p76hl80msc3pis0v1puf9k7erkpn@4ax.com">news:c5h4u0p76hl=
80msc3pis0v1puf9k7erkpn@4ax.com</A>...<BR>> =20
I think he wasn't addressing services claiming they don't=20
disclose...<BR>> his message gave examples of people trying =
to be=20
anonymous... but<BR>> someone trying to be anonymous wouldn't =
use=20
Passport (unless they were<BR>> REALLY stupid) so I'm not =
quite=20
following the logic either.<BR>><BR>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 =
10:04:25=20
-0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message<BR>> <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:41e1720a@w3.nls.net">41e1720a@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR>><=
BR>> =20
> The fragment you chose to quote is interesting. =
How=20
many services claim that they do not disclose info as required by=20
law?<BR>> ><BR>> > The rest is=20
garbage.<BR>> ><BR>> >Rich<BR>> =20
><BR>> > "Mike N." <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:mike@u-spam-u-die.net">mike@u-spam-u-die.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:e8b2u0hias1bdkdgbe34mf26snbcna0ov4@4ax.com">news:e8b2u0hias1=
bdkdgbe34mf26snbcna0ov4@4ax.com</A>...<BR>> =20
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:48:12 -0800, "Rich" <@>=20
wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > > If you mean to =
question what Passport is to Microsoft you should use Microsoft's =
claims about=20
the service<BR>> ><BR>> > <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.passport.net/Consumer/PrivacyPolicy.asp?lc=3D1033">htt=
p://www.passport.net/Consumer/PrivacyPolicy.asp?lc=3D1033</A><BR>>&nbs=
p;=20
><BR>> > "NET Passport may disclose personal =
information=20
if required to do so by law<BR>> > or in the =
good-faith=20
belief that such action is necessary to: (a) conform<BR>> =
> =20
to legal requirements or comply with legal process served on=20
Microsoft;"<BR>> ><BR>> =
> This=20
confirms the information I already had. A single signon is=20
for<BR>> > convenience, not security. Sure =
your ISP=20
can see what you're doing. They<BR>> > can =
initiate a=20
wiretap when served by a subpoena. However there are =
many<BR>> =20
> people for which this won't suffice -<BR>> =20
> o terrorists who jump from Cafe to=20
Cafe.<BR>> > o commuters who use =
wireless=20
internet services from Starbucks, at work,<BR>> > =
airports,=20
etc.<BR>> > o Those who attempt to =
escape=20
identity by wardriving from open wireless<BR>> > to =
open=20
wireless LAN.<BR>> > =
Investigators=20
would need to obtain subpoenas from thousands of ISPs to<BR>> =
> cover all activities of a person. =
Alternatively,=20
assuming that .NET is in<BR>> > widespread use, they =
would=20
just need to subpoena Microsoft to get a<BR>> > =
complete=20
profile of sites where a signon was used, and the IP<BR>> =
> =20
address/date/time they were accessed from.<BR>> =
><BR>> =20
> It still appears that if anyone gets your =
passport login, they can<BR>> > assume your =
signon,=20
just as if they are you.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_06B8_01C4FB46.55ABEE30--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|