2005-11-16

Uses OpenId?, which I think is trustworthy/fair.

Discovered while wandering through FOAF mailing list from a month ago, I think. Definitely a mailing list I need to subscribe to.

This may be “the one.” If it is, then a major piece in the FOAF puzzle is solved: “How do we make it easy for people to get FOAF sites?”

Then the second major piece, “How do I visualize the FOAF network?” can fall into place, and then from there, it’s all extension, extension, extension.

But I need to research this site some more, and:

  • make sure I trust OpenId?,
  • make sure I trust vIdentity,
  • figure out where I want to put my “identity”

Ideally, I’d want to hear more from others in the FOAF community, see what their thoughts are, and from the CommunityWiki & neighboring communities.

But, I think this is interesting, and worth looking at.

just so we can play with this, here’s mine: http://tedernst.videntity.org/ One question I have with single sign-on is, How are they going to handle my existing account? I have a livejournal account already, just to read people’s journals that I know - with this videntity, livejournal doesn’t know that I’m one and the same person - I’m guessing that’ll be the same with all sites that integrate open id - does that mean I lose all those pieces of identity and start over? ugh

I am also on videntity. http://thecrypto.videntity.org/ I like the idea behind OpenID and have been following the mailing list for a long time now. It’s a very nice protocol, lightweight and does what it needs too. vIdentity has been the first site that really has found something to do with it. But there is much more that can be done. There are already patches for the Mediawiki codebase for authentication using OpenID.

Ted: I think for LJ, you should probably use your existing LJ account on LJ.

Yes, it will be a pain consolidating ID’s. But think of it this way: The alternative is to not consolidate… any of your ID’s..!

That said: I would consider vIdentity experimental. We don’t know yet for sure that vIdentity is a safe carrier of our identity, and they may one day try to lock us in.

Julian: Neat! So, you think these guys are trustworthy, and that they will carry the FOAF dream: that’s good to hear. I’m taking your word for it.

I’m on the lookout for other voices that I trust as well. I’m interested in knowing:

  • What are their ties with the FOAF community, are they loyal to it.
  • What’s the likelihood/temptation of being gated in.
  • Will they try to extort money out of groups for the priviledge of using the community that I am thinking about moving into there.

That is: I’m about to advocate to a bunch of friends for vIdentity, and I want to know that this is a safe place for them to build on.

Yes, I get what you’re saying, Lion. I can definitely see the value in using single-sign-on and single-identity that I own for new site that I haven’t yet established an account. For existing sites, for better or worse, if they mean anything to me, I won’t want to consolodate. For future, I’d much rather just have one. That I own. :-)

it will be a pain consolidating ID’s. But … The alternative is to not consolidate‚Ķ any of your ID’s

At first I mis-read this as saying that: the only alternative to the hassle of memorizing hundreds of IDs (one for every web site you post comments to) is to have one single ID.

While having a thousand distinct IDs is more hassle than it’s worth, having 2 or more IDs may be beneficial. For example, one sysadmin I know uses 2 different names when he posts to his internet discussion forum – one name for “official” statements where he’s speaking as sysadmin. A different name when he’s just speaking as an interested participant – semi-incognito. That lets people post to his sysadmin name for crucial matters that could effect the entire forum, while other people post to his regular-user name in response to stuff he might be interested in. He makes no secret that the same human uses both names. My understanding is that good Unix and Linux sysadmins do the same thing – they have one login for “normal” user stuff (reading email, surfing the web, etc.) and a different root login for crucial system stuff. (Haven’t I written about this somewhere before?).

Even in face-to-face conversations, it seems that many people have compartmentalized their lives. Their tone of voice and attitude is different when they are “Mr. Smith”, “Hey Boss”, “Officer Smith”, “Hey neighbor”, “Little Brother”, “Daddy”, or “Grandpa”.

I’ve been told that, centuries ago, many people who went through a religious conversion, also decided to change their name. I think there’s something liberating about forgiveness, about becoming a “new creature” no longer haunted by mistakes of the past.

– David

Meta:

Do you mind if I cut-and-paste this entire date page and move it in some sort of [[Identity?]] page? Or would Futures:Identity be more appropriate?

– David

I don’t mind, but I’d do a check with “search,” first. I think there are CW pages here on the subject; I’m almost certain that there are MB pages on the subject.

Which, on the meta note, I think makes clear to me that we’re screwing up in a big way, here in wikilandia.

Having played with tagging systems for a while now, and seen their extraordinary success, I think that we’re almost positively taking the wrong approach to things.

Ideally, we’d just tag this discussion “identity multiple identities sysadmin example” yadda yadda yadda, and then have it pulled up again, whenever we did a tag search for “identity.”

Actually, I think we’d want the ability to tag the discussion, and even individual comments..!

(CommunityWikiFooter)

Define external redirect: OpenId Identity

EditNearLinks: OpenID

Languages: