>> Martin wrote: >>> I'm surprised that our resident privacy advocates aren't making a >>> bigger >>> deal out of this. (If the privacy advocates have no problem then I'll >>> let this go, since this isn't a use case I feel particularly strongly >>> about myself.) >> >>Dick wrote: >> >>I was supportive of keeping the delegate from the IdP until I >>realized that the delegation was public knowledge and could not be >>hidden from the IdP.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006, 4:42:35 AM, Drummond wrote: DR> The same argument convinced me, too. If public XRDS documents are what we're DR> using to provide user control of identifier synonyms and thus provide DR> identifier portability -- which is the clearest and cleanest approach we've DR> seen -- then the best thing we can do from a privacy perspective is not DR> mislead users that they are protecting their privacy by using a "public" DR> OpenID identifier and a "private" identifier with their IdP. DR> =Drummond This is backwards: Users have already chosen the IdP whom they trust to look after their identity and privacy: and except for the unlikely double-blind scenarios, no user will want to hide RP info and usage from their own IdP. The privacy violations come into effect when the *RP* is given access to any more information than it strictly needs to know to accomplish its task. Might I suggest a fast-track approach to tabling the core requirements for OpenID 2.0 and bypassing the debate: lets just identify exactly what everyone wants to achieve, make sure the proposed protocol can support everything everyone wants to do - then leave it up to the RPs and IdP's as to which features they feel like supporting. Nobody knows in advance whether privacy or delegation or any other feature is going to succeed in the marketplace, so I feel it's better to accommodate it, then let the market decide. The bottom line is that we're spending months arguing over what will end up to be a few days work and a couple of hundred lines of code. The only thing I want to see, which can then be used to accommodate privacy protection, is for RP's to accept an IdP-initiated login. It's none of the RPs business how my user selected their openid.identity for presentation to the RP. Chris. _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
