[KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - Wed, Sept 23 at 15:00 UTC
kantara at bobpinheiro.com
Wed Sep 23 07:55:51 PDT 2009
I'd expect that what I'm proposing would be part of the large-scale
project that is being proposed for 2010, not the project for 2009, which
I understand to be mostly a literature review. I thought that the
actual proposal for 2010 is going to be developed as part of this
preliminary 2009 work. If my input is requested as part of putting
together a 2010 proposal, I'll be glad to provide it.
J. Trent Adams wrote:
> Bob -
> Are these areas of exploration you need to see addressed in the written
> request for funding before you can support it?
> If so, can you suggest a concrete statement that could be added to the
> Bob Pinheiro wrote:
>> From the viewpoint of the Consumer Identity WG, I would like to see
>> this work also explore what kinds of incentives would be necessary in
>> order for consumers to adopt stronger security measures (ie, stronger
>> authentication) for access to online financial accounts and other
>> high-value online services, as well as for making online payments
>> using credit card numbers and other payment services.
>> As an example, how might consumers react to policy changes by online
>> service providers designed to stimulate greater usage of more secure
>> login procedures? Many financial service providers and payment
>> services require only weak authentication (eg, passwords / challenge
>> questions) for making online payments or accessing financial
>> accounts. Use of credit card numbers for making online payments
>> requires only knowledge of the cc number, security code, and
>> expiration date. What if these service providers said something to
>> consumers like: "Look, you can continue to access your financial or
>> payment account using only a password or challenge questions if you
>> wish. But be advised that if your information is compromised and
>> unauthorized persons access your account, we may not be able to cover
>> any losses you incur. In order to be fully protected, you must adopt
>> one of these more secure methods for accessing your account."
>> These other methods may involve OpenID or Information Cards coupled
>> with two factor authentication, or other more secure login procedures
>> than are currently in use.
>> Insight into these issues would likely also benefit the ULX WG as well.
>> Bob Pinheiro
>> Chair, Consumer Identity WG
>> kantara at bobpinheiro.com
>> Iain Henderson wrote:
>>> Trent, sorry but I now can't make the call today; so let me try and
>>> address the remaining query over the proposed 2009 funding request
>>> for scoping of a consumer market research project via e-mail.
>>> The remaining query that i'm aware of is from Ken Salzberg, as per below.
>>> /'In reading the proposal, there is one thing that stands out as a
>>> potential issue for me./
>>> /In the Exec Summary the following statement is made:
>>> /"The ultimate aim is to produce a statistically valid body or
>>> research available to
>>> consortia partners that will enable product/ service design for those
>>> wishing to deploy
>>> and engage with user-centric/ user-driven identities."
>>> /In the Kanatara benefit section it states:
>>> /"This project seeks to build and enable genuine thought leadership
>>> across technology,
>>> business model, regulatory and user experience in the digital
>>> identity realm."
>>> The issue I have is that I question the use of Kantara funds to drive
>>> development of member products and services, which does not seem
>>> appropriate to me. This could certainly be a side benefit, but not
>>> the direct purpose.
>>> I agree that the thought leadership is a worthy goal, but is a bit
>>> weak on its own.
>>> What I would like to see is something that shows how this research
>>> will help drive/market work being done in one or more WGs.'/
>>> My perspective on that is as follows:
>>> - the funding request only relates to $5k in seed corn investment to
>>> kick start what will undoubtedly be a big and expensive research
>>> study (it has to be to genuinely get at real consumer needs in a
>>> statistically valid manner that can be modeled).
>>> - the second and third phases require additional investment, expected
>>> from organisations with large customer/ citizen bases who have an
>>> incentive in better understanding customer needs (i.e. it helps them
>>> build better products and services). They won't invest unless they
>>> are getting something back that is relevant to them.
>>> - combining the Kantara initiation and management of this study
>>> enables both a body of knowledge to be built and made available for
>>> the greater good, *and* also the development of better products and
>>> services that are the only thing that will close the current gap.
>>> Note i'd assume the terms of investment in stages 2 and 3 would be
>>> that the investors get early access to the results, but the overall
>>> body is published on an open basis.
>>> Also, to be clear; this is not a proposal aimed at only UDVPI issues;
>>> to date we have interest from the P3P, eGov and UMA groups. I don't
>>> expect that interest to firm up until the scoping work more clearly
>>> articulates the proposed research, but this is very definitely aimed
>>> at being a Kantara wide study and not just for one work group.
>>> Hope that helps.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC