I've been playing minimally with Google+ for a few weeks and it's clear to me that it's Facebook 1.3b1 with a different name. We can't fix that. Nor can NSTIC or any other noble effort. Google+ is what it is. Namely, a service meant to operate "at scale," which means with minimal interaction with individuals who are not customers (those would be advertisers) and use the service for free. Google is clearly learning by doing, however, and I'd be cautious about jumping to early conclusions. See: <http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2096925/Google-VP-Explains-the-Google-Real-Name-Policy> <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389078,00.asp> The deeper problem is on our side, and it's limiting our imagination's scope to the calf-cow system we call client-server, which has metasticised with "social networks" that substitute closed ranches for the open Web. These ranches (of which Facebook and Google+ are two) are now occupied by billions of people. I wrote about this in A Sense of Bewronging: <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2011/04/02/a-sense-of-bewronging/>. My point: Google+ might be better than Facebook, but it's one more ranch. Being a calf there doesn't give me the warm fuzzies, because I don't want to be a calf at all. I wish to be the human being I am. The calf-cow system works against that, and always has. Back to the identity issue. On the one hand, maybe it's nice that Google wants you to to be "real" in how you brand yourself. But, on the other hand they're still wanting brands, only now personal ones. They don't want you to bring onto their ranch whatever you called yourself out on the open range. As for NSTIC, it would be unwise in the extreme for it to take sides with any vendor, including (and perhaps especially) Google. Is that actually what's going on? How exactly is NSTIC part of the "real names" push by Google? Whatever the answer, I have another question: With NSTIC can I be my own "trusted identity provider"? I don't know the answer. If it's no, it's about ranching, not the wide open Internet, and not about user-driven (or even -centric) digital ID. If it's yes, then NSTIC should steer clear of siding with any "social" ranch, no matter how much NSTIC likes one of those ranch's causes. NSTIC should stand with liberating efforts, rather than more of the same from the likes of Google. (And I don't mean that negatively. In the current system, companies like Google default to ranching on the calf-cow model. I invite them to explore alternatives.) I'm assuming NSTIC does stand with liberating efforts as well as the Usual Suspects running ranches. Am I right? This page on NSTIC <http://www.nist.gov/nstic/identity-ecosystem.html> says that they're hip to the Identity Ecosystem, but it also talks about effects (a roster of Good Things) rather than causes (who they're with and what those efforts are doing). This is all IMHO; and I beg forgiveness for not understanding NSTIC better. Can't know everything, y'know? Doc P.S. The first time I sent this was from another address, so it got held for moderation: a minor identity issue. This time I'm coming from the address to which the original mail was sent. This version is longer and more thought-out, fwiw. On Aug 1, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Kaliya wrote:
NSTIC "says" it is about maintaining privacy and freedom of speach we have today on the internet while enabling "when you want to" the ability to use a verified account...but I don't have a good feeling about this.
Over the last week in preparation for the "official" door opening of Google+ they have been sweeping it clear of personas and avatars.
Yesterday I myself was included in the sweep post here: http://www.identitywoman.net/googlereal-name-identity-woman
I had been working on a post I will publish this week about NSTIC being part of the push for so called "real names" in Google+ (and apparently you can't get a google e-mail address without one either).
I am curious what others think is there a link? and are you having your accounts suspended?
I am all for "Accountability" that is different then the sort of mantra around "trusted identities" that the only ones worth trusting for anything must be "real".
- Kaliya
Kaliya Hamlin, Identity Woman (blog) (twitter)
Internet Identity Workshop - Co-Founder, Co-Producer, Co-Facilitator
Kaliya@identitywoman.net Cel +1 (510) 472-9069
Skype: IdentityWoman GTalk: Identitywoman@gmail.com AIM/ichat kaliya@mac.com Yahoo! earthwaters
____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: community@lists.idcommons.net To be removed from the list, send any message to: community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community