multi-IDs means harder taxation

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Scott Moskowitz [scott () bluespike com]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:31 PM
To: Mary Shaw; Bob Frankston
Cc: David Farber
Subject: multi-IDs means harder taxation

Ms. Shaw:

I am working on a piece concerning balancing privacy with piracy - neither term being terribly objective in any context 
- a bright circle for "true identity" at the center? Cannot answer that yet. It is mostly about attribution over 
intangibles.

But, I agree there *should* be no issue with multiple personalities and even multiple liabilities (doppelgangers aren't 
always nice) that can be matched to "true identity".

One issue is obviously "taxation". Credit history and misused digital credentials increase complexity - especially 
given a world where each issuer has different privacy and security policies. A second, the oft told stories of citizens 
who have participated in ID Theft Scams who themselves cannot be sure of their own identity - some interesting 60 
Minute/the like - stories on folks in places like Nigeria (that is not a slight against Nigeria! - just trying to make 
sure I am referencing the correct "stories").

At the end of the day multiple identities may pose a real threat by diluting suffrage. How many votes does your OpenID 
get? Taxation without representation ... The there there must ultimately be the who you "truly are" ...

Enjoyed the comments.

Sincerely,
Scott Moskowitz
http://www.bluespike.com/


Begin forwarded message:

From: David Farber <dave () farber net<mailto:dave () farber net>>
Date: June 9, 2008 3:26:07 PM EDT
To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com<mailto:ip () v2 listbox com>>
Subject: [IP] Re:   "The ID Divide"
Reply-To: dave () farber net<mailto:dave () farber net>


________________________________________
From: Mary Shaw [mary.shaw () gmail com<mailto:mary.shaw () gmail com>]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 2:45 PM
To: David Farber; Bob Frankston
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: "The ID Divide"

This brings us to a question that has been on my mind for a while --

                Why should I have a single "true identity"?

What's wrong with my maintaining multiple personas, either in the real world or the virtual world?  Why can't I be a 
librarian by day and a jazz pianist by night, indeed under different names?  For that matter, whats wrong with several 
people jointly maintaining one persona (e.g. Publius, Bourbaki). Sure, there should be some ground rules, like taking 
appropriate responsibility for whatever commitments I make in each persona. Sure, I should be restricted on a single 
civic identity for voting and government benefits, but why should I, for example, maintain credit and travel only under 
my civic identity?

Corporations are in some respects treated like persons, and those can be created and disbanded if sufficient 
obligations are satisfied (taxes, contracts, ..)

So let me pose this question:  What would be a sufficient set of policies to allow me to create multiple independent 
legal personas? "Independent" could mean "strong enough that an identity thief could only get one of them" or perhaps 
"strong enough that my employer / government / church could not make the connection".

Mary Shaw

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:54 PM, David Farber <dave () farber net<mailto:dave () farber net>> wrote:

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [bob37-2 () bobf frankston com<mailto:bob37-2 () bobf frankston com>]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 12:50 PM
To: David Farber; 'ip'
Cc: 'Dan Lynch'
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:     "The ID Divide"

The problem is the word "Identity. For a hospital it is your body. But for social networking sites you don't want to 
give out your one true identity (AKA name/password) – you need to provide proxy authorization or agency. But the rush 
to monetize can't wait for such a sophisticated idea. It's the same as confusing the DNS with trademark (or telecom 
with railroads). But even in the hospitals we're still coming to terms of concepts of agency and informed consent.

In thinking about Spectrum's Singularity site there's a disconnect between the complexity of ambiguous social issues 
and the naiveté in mapping it into technology as if there were just one grand context as per the other meaning of ID – 
Intelligent Design.

It's going to take a generation to sort out the social ambiguities and even longer if we insist on the kind of hill 
climbing algorithms inherent in focusing on short term unenlightened ROI. This is not about greedy corporations as much 
as the degree to which we've removed ambiguity. The cruel irony is that we tend to imbue "science" with the aura of 
certainty when it's just the opposite – science is very conditional. But as we apply math to finance we tend to accept 
arbitrary measures which then fail when the context changes – as they must.



[[snip]]



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com