• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration unveils online ID system

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A plan to create a national online identity system was launched today to help combat cyber crime.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke claimed the move will protect Internet consumers from fraud and identity theft.

Unveiling the scheme, he insisted the cyber ID was not a Big Brother plan by the government to snoop on web users.

Obama administration unveils national online ID system | Mail Online


More big brother, with once again using the justification of fighting "crime". What a ****ing crock
 
Obama administration unveils national online ID system | Mail Online

More big brother, with once again using the justification of fighting "crime". What a ****ing crock

To me, that's probably one of the reasons we have government...to protect us from epic-scale fraud. I don't know how it would work, but I don't see much wrong with it.

I'm pretty sick of seeing MyPayPal.com, YourPayPal.com, PayPalAuthorization.com, PayPalSignIn.com, and all the rest of the fraudish emails in my junk mailbox. Same with CitigroupHelp.com, MyCitigroup. Your Citigroup, yada yada yada. That kind of fraud is probably funding some of the most heinous crimes on the planet, including terrorism.

Go git 'em!!
 
To me, that's probably one of the reasons we have government...to protect us from epic-scale fraud. I don't know how it would work, but I don't see much wrong with it.

I'm pretty sick of seeing MyPayPal.com, YourPayPal.com, PayPalAuthorization.com, PayPalSignIn.com, and all the rest of the fraudish emails in my junk mailbox. Same with CitigroupHelp.com, MyCitigroup. Your Citigroup, yada yada yada. That kind of fraud is probably funding some of the most heinous crimes on the planet, including terrorism.

Go git 'em!!


Well Maggie I really wish they could be successful but they will find a new way to get people...stop one they start a new one
 
Oh all these passwords. What will I ever do!
 
To me, that's probably one of the reasons we have government...to protect us from epic-scale fraud. I don't know how it would work, but I don't see much wrong with it.
In theory, there no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

The "how it would work" things is the problematic sticking point.
If it all happened automagically and was overseen by incorruptible angels, I'd be more willing to consider it.

Adding complexity to a system increases chances for things to go wrong.
Putting everything in one basket, even if you "watch that basket" creates a single point of failure.
Even Google has been hacked.

I'd just as soon remain responsible for my own cyber-security.


It is possible that if I knew more about the plan, I may change my mind, but since the theory itself seems flawed, I doubt details of its intended implementation would change my mind.
 
I enjoy how the congress already rejected this idea but like anything else Obama just goes around them. GG Obama. I hope you get impeached asshole.
 
I am not a fan of this at all. However, as long as it stays voluntary and in relation to using government services... it won't infringe on my life at all. In fact, it is completely avoidable by just using a pen and paper instead of the internet.
 
The best evidence that Obama is a Communist!

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

USSA_Emblem.jpg
 
Last edited:
I enjoy how the congress already rejected this idea but like anything else Obama just goes around them. GG Obama. I hope you get impeached asshole.

You do not know communists, he will fight for Socialism in America and never stop it.
 
Yes, requiring ID online to use government services is communism. I mean, besides the fact that you can either not use the services OR you can just use a pen and paper instead. But yeah, good point. How's that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck working out for you? :lamo
 
Obama isn't 'Obama'. He's Barry Soetoro.
 
I don't like it. The potential for abuse it too high.
 
I am not a fan of this at all. However, as long as it stays voluntary and in relation to using government services... it won't infringe on my life at all. In fact, it is completely avoidable by just using a pen and paper instead of the internet.

Or we could tell them to butt out of the Internet. Just a thought. Instead saying well at least I still have a pen.


You do not know communists, he will fight for Socialism in America and never stop it.

It doesn't bother me so much that he is fighting for what he believes in, what bothers me is that he won't stop when the ideas don't pass through the branches of government. Instead he goes in a blatantly unconstitutional direction using executive agencies to get whatever he wants. Last time I checked there was three branches of government and the EPA, or FCC are not one of them. They have no authority constitutionally to pass laws on their own. It bull**** a dictator would do or a king and he isn't either one, however much he wants to be.
 
Yes, requiring ID online to use government services is communism. I mean, besides the fact that you can either not use the services OR you can just use a pen and paper instead. But yeah, good point. How's that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck working out for you? :lamo


Government service? The Internet is NOT a government service.
 
Government service? The Internet is NOT a government service.

It will not be required to use the Internet. It will be required to use the Internet for government services (collecting social security, doing transactions with the DMV, Medicare, e-filing taxes, etc). But, if you do not feel like doing that, you can do it the way people have done it since before 2000, and that's by pen and paper.

As long as it stays in the realm of using government services, I am not going to complain.
 
I'm not sure where the "government services" part of the program came from (in this thread), but all the articles I've read indicate that this is a consumer based system that will "take care of basic needs from grocery shopping to paying taxes and dating." (WIRED)

100% voluntary? I'm all for it
100% voluntary with inroads to 100% mandatory? no thanks

Personally I believe this is simply a swap out for the soon to be defunct social security number. This will eventually be a government identification system that is tied-in to e-commerce. We'll never really know how much the government is spying on us, but we don't really know how much they're doing it now either.

I'll take the tired, well-worn and apathetic road and say this is the way of the future - there's really nothing we can do about it. As long as there is money being exchanged online, there will be those who try to steal it. I would personally rather the government steadfastly hold the companies who host the online exchange of funds ultimately responsible. But those companies have far too much influence to be held ultimately responsible for a safe consumer environment. One thing that will not go away in this future, this Meadesque time of voluptas sine mora we're encroaching on is "buyer beware."
 
The only way to tackle the massive amount of fraud effectively is through the government. All in all this is definetely a good idea that will probably be implemented fairly, openly, transparently, effectively.
 
I'm not sure where the "government services" part of the program came from (in this thread), but all the articles I've read indicate that this is a consumer based system that will "take care of basic needs from grocery shopping to paying taxes and dating." (WIRED)

100% voluntary? I'm all for it
100% voluntary with inroads to 100% mandatory? no thanks

Personally I believe this is simply a swap out for the soon to be defunct social security number. This will eventually be a government identification system that is tied-in to e-commerce. We'll never really know how much the government is spying on us, but we don't really know how much they're doing it now either.

I'll take the tired, well-worn and apathetic road and say this is the way of the future - there's really nothing we can do about it. As long as there is money being exchanged online, there will be those who try to steal it. I would personally rather the government steadfastly hold the companies who host the online exchange of funds ultimately responsible. But those companies have far too much influence to be held ultimately responsible for a safe consumer environment. One thing that will not go away in this future, this Meadesque time of voluptas sine mora we're encroaching on is "buyer beware."

Weird. I heard it was only related to online government services while listening to conservative talk radio. I figure if anyone is likely to take a normal story like that and turn it into some crazy "OMG I can't even go online now" conspiracy it would be there. I did find this:

Obama's online trusted ID plan greeted with caution - Computerworld
When fully implemented, the new identity infrastructure will allow Internet users the option of obtaining trusted online identity credentials from a range of private service providers and from government entities.

The way I understand it is that is completely voluntary but the government could require it for the use of government services. I would not want to use it... imagine having one username/password for everything. It's a terrible idea.
 
The only way to tackle the massive amount of fraud effectively is through the government. All in all this is definetely a good idea that will probably be implemented fairly, openly, transparently, effectively.

Nothing is more discouraging than unappreciated sarcasm. -Anonymous
 
It will not be required to use the Internet. It will be required to use the Internet for government services (collecting social security, doing transactions with the DMV, Medicare, e-filing taxes, etc). But, if you do not feel like doing that, you can do it the way people have done it since before 2000, and that's by pen and paper.

As long as it stays in the realm of using government services, I am not going to complain.

Why does he talk about how it will be safer to use networking sites if it only used for government resources?

Mr Locke said it would mean people would no longer have to remember a variety of different passwords to do business and social networking online.

Also, If you are right, how does this fit only inside government services...

From your article...
For example, a user would be able to use a digital credential obtained from his ISP, bank or university to securely access services at multiple other sites without having to first register at each one or having to divulge personal information to them.

Such a model is expected to be far more convenient and privacy-friendly than current online authentication mechanisms.

"Usernames and passwords are no longer good enough" for protecting against identity theft and online fraud, Locke said. For the Internet to achieve its full potential, it's vital for the government and the [private sector to work collaboratively to develop a new, secure and more privacy-friendly identity ecosystem, he said.

Hmm...

"We must do more to help consumers protect themselves, and we must make it more convenient than remembering dozens of passwords," Locke said.

I still find this line hilariously retarded. :) Gary Locke shut the hell up.
 
Last edited:
Nothing is more discouraging than unappreciated sarcasm. -Anonymous

Oh I wasnt being sarcastic.

Definetely a good idea is right
Probably implemented fairly is probably. As in more likely than not.
 
Back
Top Bottom