Feature
It'll save us money and provide secure (yet optional) ways to do our online banking, healthcare, and taxes

The Useful ID Baarbarian

Has a friend ever called you to say, “Hey, unless you are genuinely trying to sell me property in the Dominican Republic, your email is hacked”? Or received a call from your bank asking if you truly meant to donate $7,000 to some pasty kid in Ohio claiming to be a Nigerian prince? Internet security is broken, and we need to roll up our cyber-sleeves and fix it. That’s why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced this new proposal on April 15, designed to fight the steady increase in online crime. Entitled the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, or NSTIC, it outlines the beginnings of an “identity ecosystem” to be created jointly by the private and public sector to spur more innovative and effective online authentication methods. Even if you’re not as immediately and easily swayed by snazzy, futuristic phrases like “identity ecosystem” as I am (and oh, how I am) there are still lots of other reasons to support increased Internet security.

To see the other side of this argument, click here to read the "counterpoint" in our point/counterpoint.

And what exactly is an "identity ecosystem," you might ask. The concept at this stage is a little nebulous, but it basically refers to an online environment that's fundamentally different than the one we have now. Instead of an anonymous free-for-all, an identity ecosystem would allow people to use and prove their identities thanks to solid authoritative sources. That ecosystem, by necessity, would support a whole mess of security options that allow consumers to choose how to better protect their online identities. NSTIC is calling these security options “trusted credentials,” which is an umbrella term for any devices or methods considered to be more secure than passwords. Yes, it’s incredibly ambiguous, but give them a break: The bulk of the technology that might qualify as a trusted credential is still in development.

This is not a new idea – in fact, inventor/philosopher/Force Majeure Ted Nelson’s work with Project Xanadu, which he founded in 1960, predicted this problem decades before the Googlian Empire. The first rule of Project Xanadu? Every server is uniquely and securely identified. A little further down the list is a similar rule: Every user is uniquely and securely identified. Nelson even foresaw the problem of compensating people for their intellectual property online; with a unique ID, a micropayment could be debited from a user’s account every time they read an article or viewed an image on a webpage. Voila! Dramatic Chipmunk would be rich! But that idea fell out of favor as Xanadu's sorta-competitor, the World Wide Web, achieved dominance.

Trusted credentials are needed to make up for the failings of passwords, which are not considered nearly secure enough to protect the sensitive information we'd like to start accessing online. "What's wrong with passwords?" you might ask. Lots of things!

Passwords? More Like Past-words!

Passwords are awesome if you’re a child founding a secret club in your tree house. They’re becoming pretty useless everywhere else, however. Well, a) no offense, but as this New York Times article on popular passwords points out, yours might not be as sneaky as you think, and b) with the rise of phishing and keystroke logging, smart hackers don’t even have to guess anymore--they’re tricking you into spilling your Internet beans. Ari Schwartz, Senior Internet Policy Advisor at the NIST’s Information Technology Laboratory, thinks they have been outdated as an online security standard for several years. “This is actually the third attempt the federal government has made [to introduce a policy] in the last 10 years,” he says. “But this time there’s more support from the private sector,” referring to a public letter dated February 17th, 2011 signed by the advocacy groups Business Software Alliance, the Information Technology Industry Council, and TechAmerica, urging Congress to support NSTIC. So apparently, writing letters to Congress actually works sometimes!

Anyway, the envisioned “identity ecosystem” will provide Americans with a number of different options for “trusted credentials” that will step up the protection of their online identities without sacrificing their privacy. Microsoft, eTrade and PayPal, amongst several other major corporations, have already expressed their support and are working on contributing technology to the strategy.

RSA SecurIDs:  br1dotcom via Flickr

‘What is a trusted credential?’ you may be asking. An example is the RSA SecurID, a token manufactured by the security division of the gargantuan information infrastructure producer EMC. It’s a small piece of hardware that provides numeric passwords from a unique key at set intervals, usually either every 30 or 60 seconds. That's matched up with the code generated by the same unique key, which resides in RSA's servers. Users have to enter the code that's displayed on their little SecurID dongles at that very second. If used in conjunction with a password, the token is a major obstacle for hackers--many corporations rely on SecurID, which is why the company freaked out so thoroughly after a very rare hack exposed its clients to attack. Google has also jumped on this bandwagon, announcing in February 2011 that interested Gmail customers can enable an extra layer of security for their accounts. This tactic is called “two-factor authentication,” and can be used with tokens, smart cards, cell phones and digital certificates, amongst other emerging platforms.

Schwartz is a major proponent of two-stage authentication, hoping that NSTIC's embracing of security features like it will “spur innovation, not interrupt it.” By moving past the ineffectiveness of passwords to something more secure, NSTIC could allow folks to perform tasks usually seen as too potentially risky to be done online, including storing healthcare records and tax records. He uses the advent of the Internet itself as an analog for this effort towards cyber security: after all, the Internet was originally a federal tool handed off to the private sector where it flourished into the cornucopia of kitten videos it is today.

Privacy Will Be Enhanced, Not Eroded

Listen, I get it: Americans love freedom. Americans often have a knee jerk reaction to plans like NSTIC because they think it might erode their personal liberty.

That’s not the case here. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has repeatedly stated that the participation in NSTIC’s strategy will be voluntary and that private companies are taking the lead, not the government. Yes, there has been a great deal of backlash anyway, with critics claiming it is an overreach of federal power and comparing NSTIC to the Chinese national internet ID system. That’s just not true. It’s like comparing apple pie to Mandarin oranges.

You need more assurance? Jeremy Grant, Senior Executive Advisor for Identity Management at NSTIC, counters these rumors, explaining that “Many other countries have chosen to rely on national ID cards. We don’t think that’s a good model. Having a single issuer of identities creates unacceptable privacy and civil liberties issues.” Schwartz elaborated on Grant’s statement by explaining that the role of the government in this initiative is limited to convening private companies to discuss practical answers, supporting their research, and making sure they abide by the Fair Information Practice Principles. The government will play no role beyond these considerations.

single page
Page 1 of 2 12next ›last »

12 Comments

Well since the government leaves me to secure my home, then I should be responsible for securing my online information--not the government.

I can already think of some easy ways to get around this system (and this will probably get my stalked by the government). But this system says nothing of computer networks working together, sure... if you launch an attack from a single computer that might be more easily detected. But let us consider this... even as you sit there, not doing anything with the computer it IS exchanging information in the background with several servers. And its not all that hard to send information to one location, and make it look like it really went somewhere else. Exploiting several connections can allow for a type of bridged-bit torrent, installation of code, or extraction of data. If the data being exchanged is small enough and cut into enough pieces, it probably won't be detectable by this system. And as soon as Big Brother gets hip to the data transfer, expand the network and make the exchange smaller.

FAIL

And what the fraggle-nackle bull PopSci? This AUTHENTICATION process sucks!

Sure we need to work on security issues. But, the author relies almost solely on the "appeal to authority" fallacy, which should alert any reader that he has few or no facts to back her claims. This just makes the counterpoint argument the more persuasive, starting with the idea that it is not security per se, but poor programming code that leads to security loopholes.

"Well since the government leaves me to secure my home, then I should be responsible for securing my online information--not the government. "

exactly, no amount of government regulation can foolproof a system. which is why exploits and scams will continue to exist.

the only thing they can do is to help build awareness of the scams and the dangers that their citizens face and suggest adequate solutions.

but then again, we don't really need the government for that either. which goes to show that the internet will continue to thrive with or without government regulation.

This is a nightmare scenario. It won't work, and nobody will be held accountable for the damage it does. It will eventually be about as "optional" as using your SSN as an ID. George Orwell was an optimist.

Yet another iteration of corporate cronyism. We need this like we need obamacare and the department of education needs swat teams.

Yea, it might be optional now, but what happens when the banks and government do away anything else BUT this way of identification? There goes our privacy.

To think this would be any better than what we have now is laughable. And I haven't even read the article yet! :)

So, it is "currently legal to blank an IP address"? In other words, it is currently legal for me to have a private life, in America?! Oh, we better put a stop to that right now...!

Yes, "voluntary" is a joke in this context, because no form of "voluntary" authentication is voluntary for the *user*, particularly when it's hardwired into every device made by every manufacturer who "joins the initiative." It just means yet another junk service we'd have to deal with being pressured into using. And how exactly is it meant to console me that the federal government won't be managing it, but, say, Microsoft will instead?

And why is it even related to the hardware? That doesn't relate to the user. One user may have accounts on four different pieces of hardware - say, a phone, a netbook, a home PC, and a work machine - and, say, three of those might have multiple users, and two of them could easily be lost or stolen. Hardware IDs might help the justice system to track down rare criminals, but they wouldn't benefit consumers authenticating for financial transactions or the health records mentioned above, or anything else, for that matter.

My favorite bit from the article is the idea of blank IPs as a nefarious security trick. Cute. You know you couldn't so much as watch a YouTube video that way, right? ("Not available in your country.")

This article assumes that any system that is created will be perfectly secure and completely un-hackable. It also doesn't mention that humans can still be tricked into doing stupid things. Those to examples at the start (Nigerian prince and property sale) can still be carried out, its just a matter of social engineering. (maybe more difficult though) The only secure system is the one that is not usable. As long as humans are involved nothing is completely safe.

Speaking of trust and security, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce? Wouldn't trust 'em as far as I can throw 'em. Might as well add in the Koch brothers and Microsoft.

The article states:
>quote
Listen, I get it: Americans love freedom. Americans often have a knee jerk reaction to plans like NSTIC because they think it might erode their personal liberty.
/quote

This is purely a meaningless strawman claim. Here's why: It is not our liberties at stake with these ID systems, it is the theft of our identities itself. Thus what is defined as our liberties isn't lost, it becomes the property of thieves. Hence only the thieves will have anonymity. The very act of trusting an ID system by definition entails labeling the innocent as the thief in the group.

In effect, by having a central identity authority, such a system merely provides a central place for the thieves to peruse a complete list of valid identities to steal. Essentially erasing any possibility for a responsible user to protect themselves through their own diligence. Since this authorities authority now trumps and has access to the authority that the diligent user no longer has any control of the security under which it is held.



June 2013: American Energy Independence

Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif