• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Identity Woman

Identity Woman

Independent Advocate for the Rights and Dignity of our Digital Selves

  • About
  • IETF Research
  • She’s Geeky: AI Edition
  • Weekly SSI Newsletter
  • Blog
  • Media Coverage
  • Contact
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Digital Rights

Just what I was afraid of.

Kaliya Young · December 21, 2006 · 1 Comment

From Slashdot: Federal prosecutors say they don’t need a search warrant to read your e-mail messages if those messages happen to be stored in someone else’s computer.
“We’re looking at a future in which almost all of our private papers are in the hands of third parties and not protected by the Fourth Amendment,” said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation
I hope the EFF, ACLU, EPIC and everyone else who can possibly pile on to this one.
From the Star Tribue:

The government needs a search warrant if it wants to read the U.S. mail that arrives at your home. But federal prosecutors say they don’t need a search warrant to read your e-mail messages if those messages happen to be stored in someone else’s computer.
That would include all of the Big Four e-mail providers — Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail and Google — that together hold e-mail accounts for 135 million Americans.
Twenty years ago, when only a relative handful of scientists and scholars had e-mail, Congress passed a law giving state and federal officials broad access to messages stored on the computers of e-mail providers.
Now that law, the Stored Communications Act of 1986, is being challenged in federal court in Ohio by Steven Warshak, a seller of “natural male enhancement” products who was indicted for mail fraud and money laundering after federal investigators sifted through thousands of his e-mails.

I would like the language in the i-broker agreements for XDI.org to have language that basically says they will treat personal data held as if it were in someone’s house and therefore protected under the 4th amendment.

Concerning acts of legislation

Kaliya Young · October 28, 2006 · Leave a Comment

I just read a link to this on Slashdot. I am quite concerned about what it says.

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.”
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is “martial law.”
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.” Section 333, “Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law” states that “the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (“refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”
For the current President, “enforcement of the laws to restore public order” means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against “disorderly” citizenry – protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called “illegal aliens,” “potential terrorists” and other “undesirables” for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That’s right. Under the cover of a trumped-up “immigration emergency” and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

Identity Commons, Aldo interviews Eugene and I

Kaliya Young · October 24, 2006 · Leave a Comment

About two weeks ago Aldo interviewed Eugene and I about Identity Commons. It was just posted this morning. So enjoy.

Momentum has a section on Digital ID

Kaliya Young · October 8, 2006 · Leave a Comment

My friend Allison Fine finally got her book published – Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age. On her blog she writes about engaging with the digital world. Her perspective is great because she is relatively normal. Living outside New York with her husband and three sons. She understands the power of the web to transform things but also isn’t technical enough to deal with all the usable stuff that some how we here in the Valley think is usable.
I got to talk with her while she was writing her book and she included a section on Digital Identity along with giving me the closing quote of the book.
Here is the Digital Identity section:
I must preface this by saying that when I was talking to her about 9 months ago it was not clear that OpenID was coalescing the way it has. I am going to work with Allison to see if we can get an update on her blog saying that YADIS is really receded into the background and OpenID is where it is at.

The Internet has grown up in such a topsy-turvy manner that there have not been any standards for protecting the identity of users. Even though we may try to opt out of potential spam, almost every Internet user has made the mistake and logged into the wrong site, one that didn’t care about privacy. The result was a flood of e-mails opening up an astonishing world of genitalia enlargements and enhancements. You may have devised your own pass codes but the companies you logged into own them, and by logging into their systems you have given them the right to use that information for their own purposes even if they do not sell it to others.
According to a paper released in 2005 by Microsoft, “Online identity theft, fraud, and privacy concerns are on the rise, stemming from increasingly sophisticated practices such as ‘phishing.’ The multiplicity of accounts and passwords that users must keep track of and the variety of methods of authenticating to sites result not only in user-frustration, known as “password fatigue,” but also insecure practices such as reusing the same account names and passwords at many sites.” (the term phishing refers to the practice by scam artists of sending out official-looking messages in an attempt to trick people into giving them their pass codes and other digital-identity information.)
My digital identity is the information that others know about me through my online interactions. I keep a folder on my computer that contains the different pass codes and registrations I have online. It is an ever-growing list that includes news sites, travel services such as Amtrak and airlines, memberships for activist groups and products and services such as recipes and Amazon.com. All these sites have at least my e-mail address. And these are the logins and information that I know about. Who knows what permissions I have given to companies by clicking on various end-user licensing agreements for various software and websites! Susan Crawford , an expert on digital law and privacy, has written, “Some part of identity is controlled by the individual, but most of the identity is crated by the world in which that individual operates. We can think of identity as a streaming picture of a life within a particular context. Each of us has multiple identities. The sites we click on, whether a link on an e-mail or a page on a website, are carefully registered, analyzed, and sometimes even sold by companies trying to capitalize on and profit from where our eyes have gone.
Attention Trust, an activist organization in San Francisco Bay Area was created to counter this trend. Attention Trust advocates that any site we, as customers and citizens are looking at is our ‘attention,’ and that this attention is both valuable and private. The organization is pressing for increased disclosure by trackers of data they are collecting and how they are using these data. Attention Trust wants to shift the ownership of our attention away from companies towards individuals.
Worrying about spam and feeling the need to constantly invent and reinvent pass codes and new online identities are taxing our imaginations and patience. In the absence of face-to-face contact, you cannot know who you are interacting with online and what their intentions are. A push back on digital identity has begun. For instance, decoupling cell-phone numbers from cell phones was a victory for individual users over the telephone companies.
But, what would happen if we flipped the digital identity equation and required service providers to ask permission to user our identity only in certain preferred ways? This is where Identity Commons, YADIS (Yet Another Digital Identity System), and similar efforts come in. Digital Identity efforts, sometimes called user-centric efforts, are building rules, tools and frameworks for open, trusting online networks. The internet has developed in stages. The first stage, when the internet was still a project of the Defense Department, established an open electronic network relaying information quickly and safely between scientists. The second stage when the World Wide Web was introduced in the early 1990’s opened the Internet up to users who were not techies – both individuals and businesses, both legitimate and nefarious.
The next stage of Internet development is combining the best of the first two stages: the open trusting connections formed in the first stage and the usability and scale of the second. Digital identity is a critical aspect of this third stage of development. The responsibility for creating new identities to access information or sites now resides entirely with the user or customer. But now efforts are being made to develop software tools, including new universally unique identifiers (UUIDs) that can be used instead of e-mail addresses. UUIDs are like Social Security numbers; users can choose whether to share them with others. These new systems allow you, the owner of the identity, to create a profile of yourself once, and allow to use parts of it on request. So, for example, I might give the New York Times permission to use my e-mail address but for one year and for updates only. I might also choose to give the Red Cross my e-mail and home address and my telephone number so that they can alert me to emergency situations and let me know how I can help locally.
The next generation of digital-identity systems returns control of information to individuals and away from companies and spamers. New digital-identity systems represent a gigantic shift from the way the internet currently works. It reverses the polarity from crating numerous identities that go into sites never to be seen again (And potentially sold or shared unwittingly with others) to sites’ coming to you and asking permission to use parts of your identity that you control. The new way is back to the future, back to the way the original architects of cyberspace envisioned relationships being formed and information being shared online.

The Book Closing:

As long as we have social problems to solve, we need to keep searching for a better way. This need has been urgent for some time, and with each passing day of government inaction it becomes more so. As we have seen in Momentum, such broad, positive and sustainable change is possible in the Connected Age.
Kaliya Hamlin, an activist, advocate and blogger perhaps put it best when she said, “Social change is happening. People are exchanging ideas, learning from one another and learning to trust one another in new and different ways, particularly….strangers. This process will lead to new and different ways of tackling existing problems — we don’t have to come up with solutions, we just have to get out of the way of passionate people and good ideas will emerge.’

Paul how does SAML help exactly?

Kaliya Young · October 8, 2006 · Leave a Comment

I thought you could clarify how you think SAML will help with this.

While multiple screen names can be tracked at home, the company is working on a tool to associate different screen names across school and home to notify parents.

Isn’t the whole point of the Laws of Identity that people should not have there identifiers aggregated across contexts without their knowledge.

Yet Another Conference with a Digital Identity Track

Kaliya Young · September 24, 2006 · Leave a Comment

We have the Forthcoming ACM conference with a special day on November 3 on Digital Identity. I just found this annoucement from the Future of Identity in the Information Society (FIDIS) about a special track at the 22nd IFIP International Information Security Conference. The overall conference theme is new approaches for security, privacy and trust in complex environments. It is May 14-16 in South Africa.
Topics may include:
* Identity management
* Profiling and customer relation management
* Global management of identities
* Advanced identity documents
* RFID and other, tracking technologies
* Biometrics
* Surveillance
* ID related crime
* IT law for preventing Misuse
* Computer Forensics
* Privacy, anonymity and pseudonymity
* Multilateral Security
* Adequacy and Inadequacy of the Law
* Social, legal and ethical aspects of IT security

Identity in the Arab World pt1

Kaliya Young · August 9, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Two stories that I have read in the print the last two weeks about Identity issues in the Arab world that are worth surfacing.
First of all this story in Newsweek Iraq:A Deadly Name Game

By law, all Iraqis carry jinsiyas, or national ID cards. But in a country where your ethnicity can make you a target, a jinsiya can become a death warrant. If your name is Omar you’re likely a Sunni Muslim, named after a seventh-century imam despised by Shiites. If you’re Amar or Aamer, pronounced almost the same, you could be from either sect. If you’re Ali, you’re probably Shiite. As a result, many Iraqis have started carrying two jinsiyas—a real one, and a fake one linking them to the rival sect. The demand for false ID cards has spiked as bodies pile up in the Baghdad morgue at the rate of 35 to 50 a day, frequently bound and blindfolded, a jinsiya in their shirt pocket.

It seems that we often think of identity in the context of western liberal democracy this situation in Iraq makes me wonder about what it means to make ‘really secure’ documents and identifying papers for people.

Net Nuetrality to-Regulate or Not-to-Regulate

Kaliya Young · August 4, 2006 · Leave a Comment

This NYTimes piece hightlights an interesting perspective about why regulating the Internet may not be a good idea to protect Net Nuetrality.

It’s tempting to believe that government regulation of the Internet would be more consumer-friendly; history and economics suggest otherwise. The reason is simple: a regulated industry has a far larger stake in regulatory decisions than any other group in society. As a result, regulated companies spend lavishly on lobbyists and lawyers and, over time, turn the regulatory process to their advantage.
Economists have dubbed this process “regulatory capture,” and they can point to plenty of examples. The airline industry was a cozy cartel before being deregulated in the 1970’s. Today, government regulation of cable television is the primary obstacle to competition.
Of course, incumbent broadband providers do have some limited monopoly powers, and there is cause for concern that they might abuse them. Last fall, the chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, argued that Internet giants like Google and Microsoft should begin paying for access to his “pipes”— never mind that consumers already pay AT&T for the bandwidth they use to gain access to these services. If broadband providers like AT&T were to begin blocking or degrading the content and services of companies that didn’t pay up, both consumers and the Internet would suffer.

The unexpected posterchild of HollyHock

Kaliya Young · July 5, 2006 · 2 Comments

This was a very interesting expereicne – I go to HollyHock’s website to see when the Leadership Workshop starts on August 18th. Then I see this –

The picture was taken buy Kris Krug (an amazing photographer and bryght guy) and fellow Web of Changer – The conference we were at last year at Holly Hock.
I am happy to be one of their poster children because I tell folks all the time to go there – it is a heavenly retreat center. Not to posh, not to rustic – just right to relax and be. The view is amazing, hot tub over looking the ocean. Some amazing teachers choose to lead workshops there. My workshop this August is with Robert Gass.
I am posting this to wonder publicly about the deeper identity issues it raises for me in the digital age of flickr, creative commons and norms of usage.
They never asked me or even told me they were using the photo. What if I didn’t want to be there poster child? Is this really a non-comercial use? (the photo is licensed CC) and if it is not should they be paying Kris and/or me. I am not complaining at all and I really don’t want anything from HollyHock at all – I love them and want to help so lending them my photo for the season seems like a great way to contribute. I wonder about this more for beyond this situation.

Emerging Identity Standards

Kaliya Young · June 23, 2006 · Leave a Comment

I am deeply conflicted – Standards for users is happening at BloggerCon the same tim as Who Owns You at SuperNova.
So for both “”panels”” I though I would share that this week there were three major developments within the identity sector towards convergence around standards.
i-names global services launched
OpenID 2.0 clarified
and OSIS was formed A Giant Step to Reduce Uncertainty in the Digital Identity Marketplace

Technorati Tags: BloggerCon, BloggerCon, Reputation, supernova2006

My phone number is my number…not the phone compaines

Kaliya Young · June 9, 2006 · Leave a Comment

I just got this note from a friend…it sucks. The government is ours not the phone companies but some how they are doing this.

REMINDER….16 days from today, all cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start to receive sale calls. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS! To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone: 888-382-1222. It is the National DO NOT CALL list.
It will only take a minute of your time. It blocks your number for five(5) years. You must call from the cell phone number you want to have blocked. You cannot call from a different phone number. HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS 0r go to: www.donotcall.gov
Register your home phone and your cell phones…follow instructions.

What if you don’t have home phone? Anyways.
UPDAT: Paul Madson wrote to tell me he thinks it is a hoax pointing me to about.com’s page on the subject. Oh well. it could be true and I have heard rumors that the cel phone companies want to make a directory.

Digital Rights New Rights for a New Era – Lessig and Stallman

Kaliya Young · April 28, 2006 · Leave a Comment

There is a great new documentary coming out ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM produced by Project Free Zarathustra. They have a great list of links.

Queer Identities and discrimination online

Kaliya Young · February 7, 2006 · Leave a Comment

So there is a big hubub going on around World of Warcraft

[the new “golf” in case you haven’t heard yet – I can’t wait until we have WoW day pre DIDW instead of real golf…what do you think Vince ;)].

around discrimination towards the queer community. Dana Boyd’s latest post was brought my attention to this issue and in an update highlighted why this relates to identity in particular.

As has been noted over and over again, queerness is an identity not just a set of sexual practices. By silencing people’s identities and not allowing people to have bigot-free spaces, Blizzard is upholding a level of discrimination that far outweighs the _potential_ sexual harassment that might occur if people’s sexualities were known.

More about the situation from Dana…

I’ve already heard on numerous occasions that there is intense homophobia within the chatrooms on WoW and this had already made me quite uncomfortable. But Blizzard’s response is just disgusting. How can they call a queer-friendly guild sexual harassment given that this is an attempt by the queer community to create space? Furthermore, there’s so much sexism in the chats (aside from the creatures) that no one from Blizzard can actually argue that they are preventing sexual harassment. I can’t help but wonder about the state of other forms of discrimination and prejudice within the system (particularly since “race” is critical to the narrative of WoW). That said, i don’t care enough to find out – i can’t justify spending personal money on a company with these values.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2

     Copyright © 2026 Identity Woman  evelurie.com/web design/develop     

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility
  • Sitemap
  • Contact