This workshop changed my views on the need, social implications and effectiveness of identity management on portal and social networking sites.
There were diverse perspectives from Industry(google), acedemia, government and civil society(NGO's). The undercurrent of this session was around safegaurding freedom of choice while ensuring age verification and filtering.
These are complex, difficult and competing objectives. Even simple suggestions like Default setting of restrictive access to senstive information like age, sex, religion and political leanings has met with concerns of lack of choice.
Inernet is a difficult place vulnerable sections of the society like children and young people. the self determination approch suggested by the korean Sunyoung Yong was both effective and crisp.
She shared the two social networking sites from Korea. the first was similair to Facebook and Myspace fairly restricitve and second one DCinside...
The DCinside example was unique and compelling... It was based on the concept of identity what you want it to be online. it is not who you are but what what you do is the identifier. even if there are fake post and barges...they will eliminated by the community.
Sunyoung Yong Excerpts:
"Identity is a social construction...
Users are anonymous to enjoy the freedom of expression...
Reputation is the key to enabling autonomous expression..."
Marco from google italy expressed commitment to child safe online, he explained about default safe search, child safety booklets, video informed consent forms and undercontruction child safety portal.
Legal Expert explained the legal angle to Identity Management in terms of Acceptance and importance of informed consent.
The critical questions like, What if a Minor is clicking the "I agree button" - can it be considered qualified informed consent..
the Swedesh government represntative emphasized the importance self regulation by the industry. He stressed need for Walled gardens for Kids and creation safe environments for young childrens by implementing labeling systems. He acknowledged the risk of these labling systems that may enable Censorship. While law should be last resorts, He concluded by establishing that vulnerbale groups need laws to be it both parents or children.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Internet of Things - IGF Dec 6th 2008
Applicability of Handle System and a proposal on ONS gTLD was the main focus of this session. Interoperability and inevitability of usage of DNS on Machine2Human interactions were grudgingly acknowledged. Proposing Handle system for Machine2Machine Metadata exchange was mooted.
I felt that both of these arguments lacked the merit of a credible global scale solutions to internet of things (with due respect to Bob Kahn - CNRI - Digital Object Identifier initiative).
I do not see any reason to go to antiquated manufacturer suffix based MAC address like handle system or a shortcut approach with a proposal to embrace and extend the already insecure DNS system by creating a .ONS gTLD (suggested Prof. Francis Muguet).
We need a fresh and simpler approach. IPv6 was on the table but it was not taken up up much needed passion. My early suggestions on Global directory service for the Digital world back 2005 based IPv6 was probably little nascent. However the central idea is very relavent and practical for Active RFID today.
The aspect of creating a identifier and associating meta data to it needs to be handled independently. This is the beauty and power of simplicity of current Internet architecture.
In my opinion, An effective way to handle identity of Internet of things is IPv6 with LDAP for simplicity and security.
IPv6 could possibly be embedded into each of active RFID chip along with a self-signed key. A directory more like a ITU-ENUM or Yellow Pages or LDAP approach could be taken to capture and keep the meta-data data accessible to interested parties with strictly ACL(Access Control Lists) based restrictions.
The Privacy concerns on Internet of things like ability to Turnoff the RFID after Purchase or Reaching the final destination was important. Current cost barrier or cost differential between Passive RFID and Active Mutable RFID Chips were discussed.
The Current GS1 initiative on RFID would have been a better forum for definition, control and access requirements for RFID Meta-data. It may also be good forum to influence policy decisions on privacy enhanced technology in RFID.
I think IGF definitely helped to raise consciousness on the emerging applications of Internet and their impact on the society through this discussion on Internet of Things.
I felt that both of these arguments lacked the merit of a credible global scale solutions to internet of things (with due respect to Bob Kahn - CNRI - Digital Object Identifier initiative).
I do not see any reason to go to antiquated manufacturer suffix based MAC address like handle system or a shortcut approach with a proposal to embrace and extend the already insecure DNS system by creating a .ONS gTLD (suggested Prof. Francis Muguet).
We need a fresh and simpler approach. IPv6 was on the table but it was not taken up up much needed passion. My early suggestions on Global directory service for the Digital world back 2005 based IPv6 was probably little nascent. However the central idea is very relavent and practical for Active RFID today.
The aspect of creating a identifier and associating meta data to it needs to be handled independently. This is the beauty and power of simplicity of current Internet architecture.
In my opinion, An effective way to handle identity of Internet of things is IPv6 with LDAP for simplicity and security.
IPv6 offers a universal digital identifier and LDAP provides a rich mature, scalable and secure framework for access and storage RFID meta-data.
IPv6 could possibly be embedded into each of active RFID chip along with a self-signed key. A directory more like a ITU-ENUM or Yellow Pages or LDAP approach could be taken to capture and keep the meta-data data accessible to interested parties with strictly ACL(Access Control Lists) based restrictions.
The Privacy concerns on Internet of things like ability to Turnoff the RFID after Purchase or Reaching the final destination was important. Current cost barrier or cost differential between Passive RFID and Active Mutable RFID Chips were discussed.
The Current GS1 initiative on RFID would have been a better forum for definition, control and access requirements for RFID Meta-data. It may also be good forum to influence policy decisions on privacy enhanced technology in RFID.
I think IGF definitely helped to raise consciousness on the emerging applications of Internet and their impact on the society through this discussion on Internet of Things.
IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)
IGF had couple sessions by the DCOS coalition.
I attended the session on 6 th Dec 2008 on Reforming Standards Process...
All of the biggies from the industry were well represented...
IBM, Oracle, Sun and several others from open source world were present. NGO's Like ACT were very active. Members from several standards bodies were present.
I felt that the meeting focused too much on the OOXML and how different countries voted on ratifying this standard. Comments on linking corruption with the voting preferences was taken in a bad light(later apologised)
Microsoft person expressed need reform on the short duration of the fast track process. The Explanation was the ECMA was considered a Top class body by ISO and hence was given privilege of putting the standard on fast track.
I feel that the standards process initiated by industry consortium's/associations are useful to kick start the interoperability. The evolution and adoption of these standards on a global scale brings up the question who these standards are meant for, how does it effect them.
Although a very important point was made with a case study on smart cards(India) on how governments can leverage standards to reduce cost by creating a level playing field and competition. I fail to understand the role of National Standards setting bodies on voting for or against a already prevailing industry standard. What influence they have in mandating or adopting of this standard by the industry in the local country.
I asked this question in the forum and it was unanswered citing it could be long discussion by the moderator.
A rep from ACT quested IBM speaker on why IBM supports open standards where it is beneficial to them and why it does not open up Mainframe protocols on which it sued other companies into public domain.. Moderator exempted IBM person from answering this... citing it was deviating from the topic.
The Microsoft Person object including the Royalty Free patents in the Recommendations...Citing that Recommendation are agreements of the group... and he strongly disagrees on the that position. The Chair/Moderator change the Recommendation to Suggestion to satisfy him.
Overall as with any debate where the stakes are high, Comments and suggestion from the stake holders were guarded and vague.
The influence on the standards process by the people affected by them seems to be main theme of IGF. This is true on DNS/DNSSEC, IPv6 adoption(ITU vs ICANN) and Internet Standards(ISO, W3C, IETF, OASIS) proceses itself.
I attended the session on 6 th Dec 2008 on Reforming Standards Process...
All of the biggies from the industry were well represented...
IBM, Oracle, Sun and several others from open source world were present. NGO's Like ACT were very active. Members from several standards bodies were present.
I felt that the meeting focused too much on the OOXML and how different countries voted on ratifying this standard. Comments on linking corruption with the voting preferences was taken in a bad light(later apologised)
Microsoft person expressed need reform on the short duration of the fast track process. The Explanation was the ECMA was considered a Top class body by ISO and hence was given privilege of putting the standard on fast track.
I feel that the standards process initiated by industry consortium's/associations are useful to kick start the interoperability. The evolution and adoption of these standards on a global scale brings up the question who these standards are meant for, how does it effect them.
Although a very important point was made with a case study on smart cards(India) on how governments can leverage standards to reduce cost by creating a level playing field and competition. I fail to understand the role of National Standards setting bodies on voting for or against a already prevailing industry standard. What influence they have in mandating or adopting of this standard by the industry in the local country.
I asked this question in the forum and it was unanswered citing it could be long discussion by the moderator.
A rep from ACT quested IBM speaker on why IBM supports open standards where it is beneficial to them and why it does not open up Mainframe protocols on which it sued other companies into public domain.. Moderator exempted IBM person from answering this... citing it was deviating from the topic.
The Microsoft Person object including the Royalty Free patents in the Recommendations...Citing that Recommendation are agreements of the group... and he strongly disagrees on the that position. The Chair/Moderator change the Recommendation to Suggestion to satisfy him.
Overall as with any debate where the stakes are high, Comments and suggestion from the stake holders were guarded and vague.
The influence on the standards process by the people affected by them seems to be main theme of IGF. This is true on DNS/DNSSEC, IPv6 adoption(ITU vs ICANN) and Internet Standards(ISO, W3C, IETF, OASIS) proceses itself.
IGF 2008 - Hyderabad
I am honoured to to be a part of the Third Internet Governance Forum - An Initiative of United Nations.
All the Visitors to IGF - 2008 - thank you from the bottom of my heart. I admire your commitment to the cause and the people you represent at IGF and your expression of solidarity to Indians in the wake of Mumbai Terror Attacks.
Thanks to leaders of IGF - Nithin Desai and Markus Kummar for bring this august gathering of intellectuals to my home town - Hyderabad
I offer my sincere thanks to
Rajesh - C E O of NIXI
Naresh - President - Sify
Rajesh - GM, Infrastructure - Sify
David - Chief Communication Officer - Sify
for giving me the oppurtunity to participate in IGF -2008
I had a chance to make new friends, understand different cultural, political and technical leanings of diverse set of people.
As a Internet Citizen and a beneficiary of this medium, There were several important topics that were compelling, thought provoking and interesting to express myself.
Please note that the views expressed in this blog are expressed in my Personal Capacity and not as Officer of Sify. They are in no way attributed to Sify's public policy or any other official communications.
All the Visitors to IGF - 2008 - thank you from the bottom of my heart. I admire your commitment to the cause and the people you represent at IGF and your expression of solidarity to Indians in the wake of Mumbai Terror Attacks.
Thanks to leaders of IGF - Nithin Desai and Markus Kummar for bring this august gathering of intellectuals to my home town - Hyderabad
I offer my sincere thanks to
Rajesh - C E O of NIXI
Naresh - President - Sify
Rajesh - GM, Infrastructure - Sify
David - Chief Communication Officer - Sify
for giving me the oppurtunity to participate in IGF -2008
I had a chance to make new friends, understand different cultural, political and technical leanings of diverse set of people.
As a Internet Citizen and a beneficiary of this medium, There were several important topics that were compelling, thought provoking and interesting to express myself.
Please note that the views expressed in this blog are expressed in my Personal Capacity and not as Officer of Sify. They are in no way attributed to Sify's public policy or any other official communications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)