You could do far less productive and entertaining things than spend the next 15 minutes viewing this presentation by Dick Hardt, CEO of Sxip. It’s both a presentation tour de force as well as a brilliant overview of the digital identity space.
In Dick’s parlance, our abortive efforts at Sprint were aiming to build “Identity 1.9”. We wanted to create a more user-centric identity model, but with the carrier acting as a proxy for you. Not a pure and perfect end-to-end solution, but one which was technically feasible at the time and sellable internally.
UPDATE: I used to present this stuff to Sun and IBM and get black stares, because they were stuck in the enterprise-centric world of federated identity. We were talking about public identity, a different beast. My metaphor was “identity projection”, rather than federation. Nice to see the wheels of history catching up with us.
Posted by Martin Geddes at 12:39 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/583.
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who am I?:
»
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Powerpoint from cazh1: on Business, Information, and Technology
There's a lot of blog traffic these days on Powerpoint and good presentation practices. This topic pops up every once in a while, and I've been noticing some new blogs, some resurgent older ones, and lots of interesting opinions ...
[Read more]
The way that we do identification in ordinary situations, or with one big Telephone Company, seems to be to more or less not require any formal credentials from anyone. One view might be that this practice of trust isn't likely to work well with more open, decentralized communication services. Alternatively, perhaps persons have relatively well developed innate mechanisms for telling whether a person is trustworthy based on subtle, informal aspects of communication. I think that there's some evidence from evolutionary biology and behavioral economics favoring the latter view.
The presentation style was excellent. Naturally I see this as confirming my conclusion in Sense in Communication that combining sound and sight lowers the cost of making sense. Isn't human nature wonderful?