[Wg-p3] A Suggested Policy Demarkation Point: Open Vs. Closed Identity Systems
info at smartspecies.com
Mon Sep 21 03:55:31 PDT 2009
I have been pondering the merits of a more explicit policy paradigm
between open vs closed id systems, and a discussion about this for the
The issue being that public policy in closed identity systems or
systems with limited user driven/managed/volunteered access, needs a
different type of policy than open, user controlled systems. In
addition, I wonder if this type of conversation may actually provide a
very useful distinction for Kantara driven activities?
Behind the distinction of open and closed there is a great deal of
ideological, philosophical, technical, jurisprudence, and sociological
thought that can be sorted and contributed to both sides of the open
and closed identity paradigm. A discussion in this light might reveal
very different types of applied identity technologies. From what I
understand a great deal of the work done in Kantara is for open ID
systems? Does an open identity system need different levels or types
of assurance for privacy than closed identity systems?
Eg. Open Id systems, social networking is user controlled, adequate
tools need to be in place for the user to control the policies and
these policies need to be enforceable by the user. Even against the
owner of the social networking site.
Eg. Closed ID systems, enterprise, healthcare, id cards, drivers
licenses, phone numbers, direct marketing. A policy explicit example
for the use of a closed id system may be the need to mandate against
function creep and designed around very specific to purpose etc. (use
Uprove technology etc.) With risk management, different types of
public usable transparency, access, and control is more specific to
constitutional rights, rather then contract rights.
Do others think this would be a useful distinction to make and point
Overall, it seems current events are pushing the agenda of this
working group, starting with the Open ID/Inforcard initiative, and the
letter this group has worked on for ICAM. Now the news of this round
table, the FTC roundtable can also be used as an ‘agenda driver’ to
get things moving, in this sense I think it would be difficult to
develop policy with any force or meaning, if the policy didnt first
engage with the wider Kantara community. I propose that we use the
roundtable as an opportunity to take the FTC questions, develop a
survey pilot it in our working group, then vote on passing the survey
around the working groups to start a process of developing a common
policy platform for this working group.
My two cents worth,
- Mark Lizar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Wg-p3