Posted on 09/20/2014 5:40:05 AM PDT by markomalley
Nothing to see here, comrades...
Hacker’s wet dream.
No thank you.
Bad idea. If a person’s solitary password is compromised then everything they do is compromised. Am I alone in liking multiple passwords for multiple applications?
What if we all get a unique identifier permantly on our foreheads?
The Biblical prophesies are coming true at an astonishing rate.
I’m all for it, and sure this is satire at the same time. Imagine how convenient it would be for users, hackers and government monitors.
Is this real?
They violate the public trust by the very means they assure us of protection. Not once, as a matter of habit. To make matters worse they praise each other for how well they lie, obscure and devise “parallel construction.”
Now if any single fact of the NSA/Snowden revelations should prove how wise the Founding Fathers were about the dangers of a government that is unrestrained, it should be “parallel construction”.
This is the term given to when the NSA has information that it developed from its unconstitutional intrusion into our “persons and papers” (see 4th Amendment) and it “leaks” it to domestic law enforcement, with the condition that the source can never be revealed.
Since going to trial allows a defendant to the process of discovery to interrogate the the government over the evidence, and in this case the basis for the arrest came from the NSA, law enforcement must dream up a plausible lie to cover up the NSA’s involvement. This is corrupt and an act of perjury at an institutional level. It has become the normal course of doing business because government almost always finds ways to give itself permission for something it really wants to do.
I find these matters to be so serious that I am willing to support an Article V convention of the States to redefine and clarify the role of the federal government in how it relates to the States and the People.
The EXEMPT agree -— because they, their families
and Staff, will again (like Moslem invaders and
criminal illegals) be EXEMPT.
That, in of itself, doesn't bother me all that much.
A two-factor or even three-factor authenticator is far more secure, in of itself, than a simple password / passphrase. (FYI, the three factors are "something you know", "something you have", "something you are")
So far, so good, right?
The problem is that this single sign-on would, by its very nature, have to apply to logging on to the Internet, itself (and, with the MS cooperation with the government, perhaps even logging on to your computer, tablet, or even smartphone).
Legally, transactions done with two-factor or three-factor authentication have the characteristic of "non-repudiation" (that is, you cannot say "it wasn't me")
The up-side is that you would have very little concern that somebody could falsely do something in your name.
The down-side is that everybody else would have very little concern that somebody could falsely do something in your name (therefore, you would effectively lose anonymity).
The loss of anonymity has up-sides and down-sides as well. People acting with criminal intent would have a very hard time...but likewise, people just wanting to have privacy could kiss it goodbye.
The final thing that I could see is that, in order for such a single sign-on, single authenticating authority for all electronic transactions to work, there would need to be a single source that could say "yes that's BlueStateRightist" or "no it isn't."
Suppose the agency that administered that single authenticating source decided that they weren't pleased with what "BlueStateRightist" said on Free Republic. They could easily "lose" your credentials in the public key repository. And then you would be utterly cut off.
I know! We could get the same folks that did the website for Obama Care.
A related downside is that if the implementation is flawed (which is likely) the unencrypted and unhashed version of "what you are" will end up in a big list on a Russian hacker website. Since you cannot change "what you are" you will be preclude from using that system forever.
just implant a transponder/microphone at birth and call it a day
Nothing good can come of this.
Sometimes the columns write themselves.
Can’t buy or sell without it...
Would there be a way to do it if a person always had to order by credit using the same device? Report your device stolen and access to your credit and personal infomation could easily be disabled. The technology company would be in charge of strong firewalls instead of having the questionable security of merchandisers.
A chip in the hand and a reader on every device. It ain’t likely, it’s probable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.