> When everyone starts centralizing their online identities into a
> single url based resource like OpenID, that 'endpoint' that everything
> resolves to becomes a two way hub -- I can quickly jump to your
> LinkedIn and Facebook accounts from your MySpace , Bebo and Flickr.

> At first it sounds like a great idea -- sharing your information like
> that is something that a lot of people want to do, especially if
> you're in the .com scene or the web-2.0 world.  But many people aren't
> -- and many people don't want to be.

> Most people like to keep their information isolated - they act
> differently and share different information across networks , with
> multiple digital personas.  They're casual on MySpace with friends,
> and more professional on Facebook or LinkedIn with colleagues.  They
> talk differently based on the context and membership of these
> communities , and share different qualities of photos and videos and
> personal information.

> Far too many technologists who embrace the Web2.0 world have been
> rushing to integrate services together with OpenID as a 'solution',
> not as a protocol.  A single digital endpoint is great from a
> management perspective, but its absolutely abhorrent from a privacy
> and risk management standpoint.  Many people don't want all their
> information so easily accessible - and aren't prepared or educated
> enough for the ramifications of what can happen.  We live in a day and
> age where a coworker might see a Facebook/LinkedIn page, and it
> becomes associated with an offsite blog entry that jeopardizes a
> career; or a Facebook page that links to MySpace content that shows
> sexual orientation.

> Posting content on a website is indeed saying "this is out there, and
> this is not private" -- but in the rush to embrace new technologies
> and the novelty of integration, technologists have completely ignored
> the responsibilities that come along with these innovations, chiefly
> the ramifications of aggregated identity content.

> As more companies start to embrace portability and openness , privacy
> becomes more and more important -- yet few talk about it.

> Julian, OpenID and 'single signon' and a single point for management
> is a great concept and I have no problem with that, in fact I love
> it.  My issue is with OpenID as a single Identifier.  I'm not an uber-
> paranoid nutjob, but I want my business and personal personas kept
> separate.  I've focus-grouped that 'middle america' demographic for
> two years -- amazingly they're not so dumb and clueless about the
> net , and have been consciously and unconsciously monitoring how they
> share info.  They only share family photos/info publicly on one
> network; they talk about work and personal lives separate.  They make
> a ton of privacy missteps, but generally have good bearings.

> That said, conflation does happen a bit at the username and email
> address level - but not quite as much as you may think , and that on
> its own is not a reason to automatically say "well then, privacy
> doesn't matter".  When you look at what can be conflated, it's even
> scarier.  People are sharing family histories on a geneology site,
> their pets on a doglover site, kids photos on others, and their
> employment/education publicly on yet more.  On their own this info is
> inocuous -- but pieced together through a mashup due to poor OpenID
> implementation/advocacy, it's not hard to find out 'mothers maiden
> name', 'first pets name', 'childs name', 'street address' or 'first
> highschool' -- the standard verifications used for identity checks in
> banking transactions.

> To quote Ben
> "But because it's about choice, the user needs to have the final say
> over what data is shared and when. We've had that in Elgg for four
> years, and I know other systems have now opted to include it: you get
> to say exactly which items of data (profile fields, blog posts, etc)
> can be seen by whom. "

> We've had that in FindMeOn's products for several years too; and I'm
> genuinely glad you and others are offering it.  But as you say "other
> systems have NOW opted to include it" - it's a new 'opt in' and
> concept for the Technologists , and not the de-facto standard.

> I'm not seeing any user warnings from startups and projects when they
> embrace portablity saying "We offer these great new features... but
> its at a tradeoff; you may want to switch features off".  Instead I'm
> seeing a brand new  system that my profile data and contact lists are
> being opted into for external views.

> It's great that some people are doing things 'right' -- but many are
> doing it wrong... dead wrong.

> I'm sorry if you don't like my tone - but I'm angered by this
> discussion.  Not by either of your comments -- which are great -- but
> that the industry as a whole has really just sidestepped user privacy
> concerns in favor of 'shiny new toys'.  I don't know what could be a
> better illustration of this, other than a Data Sharing summit that has
> several bulletpoints on a "What could go wrong" panel , NONE of which
> seem set to discuss or even touch privacy issues.  That is beyond
> disconcerting or troubling -- it genuinely angers me.

> So you might think that I'm tilting at windmills -- but honestly I
> think that view is sad and pandemic of this movement.  We're at a
> point in technology and portability where we should be making
> deliberate steps and continually asking each other "What really could
> go wrong?",  mandating safeguards and privacy controls/standards
> before we move forward.  Instead, discussions on "What could go
> wrong?" seem more focused on technology constraints and corporate/
> personal ownership, while privacy issues are left to be essentially
> optional.

> I'm with you all on user's owning their data, and choice, and
> portability, but this needs to be done right and responsibly -- and
> right now, this movement (in general) is acting far from responsibly.