[KI-LC] FW: Media query from SC Magazine - deadline 2/26/2016 17:30:00
colin_wallis at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 26 12:16:35 CST 2016
Great job Sal.Thanks for steering it Ken.So.. has it gone to SC mag now Sal? danny at itjournalist.comCheersColin
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:22:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] FW: Media query from SC Magazine - deadline 2/26/2016 17:30:00
From: kendaggtbs at gmail.com
To: sal at idmachines.com
CC: colin_wallis at hotmail.com; lc at kantarainitiative.org
Sounds great to me. One small suggestion: remove the "I" part so that the start of the second paragraph becomes, "The Kantara Identity Relationship Management workgroup was formed in many way ..."
I'd also suggest you provide a short, couple of sentences, that he could use to attribute you.
On Friday, 26 February 2016, Salvatore D'Agostino <sal at idmachines.com> wrote:
Took a run at this. A number of the latest advances in identity management stem from the fact that there is a growing understanding that the nature of the requirements and issues to be in order to perform identity management has changed. And the understanding that this impacts the business, legal and technical constructs and therefore the nature of the solutions brought to the fore. Inside Kantara I chair a workgroup called identity relationship management. It was formed in many ways as a result of the fact that the paradigm has shifted from simply managing access with a narrow concept of identity to one in which solutions need to be highly contextual and to take into account the particular identity relationships as opposed to managing a single identity and related resource with a specific method of authentication. In doing so we defined a range of principles that we believe help define the characteristics of the current paradigm. (you can see the principles and an exercise we are conducting to see how they apply here http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/irm/IRM+in+the+Wild ). Mobility and the internet of things are really helpful in examining this shift. The authentication and authorization decisions that identity systems manages is no longer that of a single identity tied to the static relationship that can be established before the fact and then related to a particular transaction. In the mobility + IoT cases an individual, the phone and the things and their many interrelated attributes are extremely dynamic and wide ranging. These bring into play the challenges of scale, performance and indirect control (the phone and devices are not wholly part of the identity management solution as they are typically 3rd party components that need to be integrated and vary significantly). As a result identity relationship management needs to be in place in order to deliver what has traditionally been identity and access management. These solutions need to evolve to bring into play things like much larger data sets, complex and dynamic database relationships among the attributes and information contained (which in combination is big data), situational (people, places, things, time, user control and consent) awareness, tenancy (as part of a cloud based solution), multi-factor authentication (to help confirm exactly the relationship of use to authentication device) and a new generation of digital credentials (OAuth, JSON Web Tokens, distributed ledgers-block chain), consent receipts as a new token category and user managed access (UMA) besides the identity relationship manager to implement solutions that leverage all of these. From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Salvatore D'Agostino
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 6:41 PM
To: 'Colin Wallis'; 'Mike Schwartz'
Cc: 'Kantara Leadership Council Kantara'
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Media query from SC Magazine - deadline 2/26/2016 17:30:00 Colin, I can pitch in on some of these: What are the latest advances in ID Management technology?
How has it evolved over the years?ID management has been largely about people in the past. How will the Internet of Things change that, if at all? I can use UMA and IRM as an examplse and also bring in some of the things we have been talking about in the IDoT DG. From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Colin Wallis
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:50 PM
To: Mike Schwartz
Cc: Kantara Leadership Council Kantara
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Media query from SC Magazine - deadline 2/26/2016 17:30:00 OK, thanks for that offer Mike.But the thing is, the guy asked Kantara, so he is expecting a response from experts on behalf of Kantara.Taking him to Gluu is kind of one step removed.I'm happy for responses to contain links to Gluu and elsewhere, but I think we are setting ourselves up for some copyright concerns if we point folks away, straight out of the gate.CheersColin> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:11:16 -0600
> From: mike at gluu.org
> To: colin_wallis at hotmail.com
> CC: lc at kantarainitiative.org
> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Media query from SC Magazine - deadline 2/26/2016 17:30:00
> I'll can offer to take a stab at responding to these questions by the
> date requested on a Gluu blog.
> On 2016-02-22 11:13, Colin Wallis wrote:
> > Thanks Ken
> > We'll consider this question dealt to.
> > Anyone else want to take on one of the others?
> > Cheers
> > Colin
> > .....................................
> >> At airports around the world, travelers' identities are routinely
> > verified using biometric identification. Recently in India, a new
> > facility for pension distribution adapted an iris authentication
> > scanner to validate citizens. New generations of fully integrated,
> > end-to-end cloud identity management platforms offer clients secure
> > and flexible means to pick and choose which services they need. For
> > this latest ebook from SC Magazine, we speak to a number of experts
> > with hands-on experience about how these advances in technologies are
> > changing the face of identity management and opening up new
> > opportunities for the enterprise to become more secure—and we’ll
> > throw in a few caveats (for one, what happens to privacy when
> > biometrics are added to the mix?) that any organization should heed
> > when revamping its identity management strategy.
> >> Here are the questions he's exploring:
> >> What are the latest advances in ID Management technology?
> >> How has it evolved over the years?
> >> What happens to privacy when biometrics are thrown into the mix?
> > GONE GONE....
> >> How are ID management systems and access management/roles-based
> > management converging?
> >> ID management has been largely about people in the past. How will
> > the Internet of Things change that, if at all?
> >> Is authentication keeping up with trends in ID management?
> >> My identity as my wife sees it may be different to my identity as my
> > bank sees it, which may be different again to my identity as my
> > employer sees it. How do we cope with multiple attributes in ID
> > management?
> >> How do we maintain and preserve identity in the long term, as a
> > person's life and circumstances change?
> >> Are there standard for ID management?
> >> What are the biggest challenges facing companies that want to design
> > and deploy their own ID management systems?
> > -------------------------
> > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 06:58:22 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [KI-LC] FW: Media query from SC Magazine - deadline
> > 2/26/2016 17:30:00
> > From: kendaggtbs at gmail.com
> > To: colin_wallis at hotmail.com
> > CC: lc at kantarainitiative.org
> > Colin,
> > I agree fully that the first two paragraphs address the scope of his
> > question regarding biometrics and privacy.
> > However, your comment, "sense of direction of travel for SC Magazine
> > being towards Data Protection" prompts me to include the rest of the
> > material regarding Privacy. In my opinion, a focus solely on data
> > protection misses the boat on respecting privacy and probably does it
> > a disservice. As you are aware, having the best data protection
> > practices in the world while using an individual's PII for unstated
> > purposes or disclosing it inappropriately, still means the
> > organization is not respecting an individual's privacy.
> > I agree with your concern regarding "a compromise in the sample or the
> > templates database" being a major issue with respect to an individual
> > having to re-establish and re-bind their identity. However, I would
> > argue that the same holds true for any piece of an individual's PII
> > that is used by an organization. Biometric data, because it is viewed
> > as unique to an individual, is in some organization's minds, viewed as
> > a silver bullet with respect to Identifcation. However, in my opinion,
> > it is just another piece of data that can be used to mitigate the risk
> > of misidentification. If the consequences of misidentification are
> > severe it should still be corroborated with other PII. In other words,
> > it is not a silver bullet.
> > This being said, I restructured the answer to address the "silver
> > bullet" concept as well as the out-of-scope text. I would recommend
> > including the background in the response as I believe that it is
> > important to raise the "technology neutral" idea with respect to
> > changing the perception held by many people that current policy is
> > outdated or has been overtaken by advances in technology. (My soapbox
> > rant for the day)
> > Wile we probably aren't going to be killed for not answering all the
> > questions I hope that others can address some of them.
> > Ken
> > ==============
> > The perception that something should happen to privacy because
> > biometrics enter the mix is erroneous.
> > Privacy is a state that is respected when an individual understands
> > and consents to how their personally identifiable information (PII) is
> > collected, maintained, used, disclosed and disposed. Biometric
> > information, given its uniqueness to each individual, should be
> > considered to be PII.
> > Regardless of its apparent uniqueness, an organization that wishes to
> > mitigate the risk of misidentification of an individual should not
> > look at biometric data as a "silver bullet". If the consequences of
> > misidentification are high they should still corroborate the biometric
> > data with other PII during their authentication. The process, whether
> > in the digital or real world, still requires an organization to
> > identify the consequences of misidentification before it puts in place
> > procedures and techniques (such as the use of biometric data) to
> > mitigate that risk.
> > Background on Privacy
> > It should be noted that jurisdictions around the world have identified
> > that respect of an individual's privacy is technology neutral.
> > For the US Government NIST Special Publication 800-122 defines PII as
> > "any information about an individual maintained by an agency,
> > including (1) any information that can be used to distinguish or trace
> > an individual‘s identity, such as name, social security number, date
> > and place of birth, mother‘s maiden name, or biometric records; and
> > (2) any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual,
> > such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information."
> > In other countries with privacy protection laws derived from the OECD
> > privacy principles, the term used is more often "personal
> > information". This term, in general, is broader than PII. For example,
> > there are two pieces of legislation that cover privacy at the federal
> > level in Canada: the Privacy Act and the Personal Information
> > Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The Privacy Act
> > relates to an individual’s right to access and correct personal
> > information the Government of Canada holds about them or the
> > Government’s collection, use and disclosure of their personal
> > information in the course of providing services (e.g., old age
> > pensions or employment insurance). PIPEDA sets out the ground rules
> > for how private-sector organizations collect, use or disclose personal
> > information in the course of commercial activities across Canada.
> > Both acts is essence define personal information to be any factual or
> > subjective information, recorded or not, about an identifiable
> > individual. This includes information in any form, such as:
> > * age, name, ID numbers, income, ethnic origin, or blood type;
> > * opinions, evaluations, comments, social status, or disciplinary
> > actions; and
> > * employee files, credit records, loan records, medical records,
> > existence of a dispute between a consumer and a merchant, intentions
> > (for example, to acquire goods or services, or change jobs).
> > Excluded is information concerning the name, title, business address
> > or telephone number of an employee of an organization.
> > Both acts identify how personal information should be collected,
> > maintained, used, disclosed and disposed. Of interest is the
> > requirement to identify a retention period for the personal
> > information that is collected about an individual and how that
> > information is expunged from an organization's records.
> > Also of interest is how the power and versatility of re-identification
> > algorithms have significantly increased the ability of identifying an
> > individual without the use of PII. As such, Big Data is becoming an
> > issue in privacy circles.
> > <snip>
> > _______________________________________________
> > LC mailing list
> > LC at kantarainitiative.org
> > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
> Michael Schwartz
> Founder / CEO
> mike at gluu.org
Identification and Authentication
kendaggtbs at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC