Thursday, February 03, 2005, 2:33 AM

Information Dogma

Noted. Just read an incisive article that Tim Grayson wrote on Digital Identity Religion and Information Dogma. It helps me understand why I'm having problems figuring the opposing demands of corporate identity management requirements compared to personal identity management requirements. For example, should identity agents audit access patterns? -- depends on if you're looking at it from the corporate or the personal perspective.

When you enter into a transaction with a third party, how much information do they retain about you? At one end of the spectrum is a Libertarian perspective that specify minimum information is retained by the third party. At the other end of the spectrum is a Fascist view which says that individuals don't own information -- whenever information is shared (or can be obtained), the third party can store and use it in the future. Where any one person ends up on the spectrum is effectively where their information dogma is.

Grayson encourages us to -- when we choose our identity religion (centralized Big Brother directories, federation, closed systems) -- be aware of our information dogma that drives it.

Good stuff.

Resources:
Tim Grayson, Digital Identity Religion and Information Dogma (http://www3.sympatico.ca/trdgrayson/PDFs/infodogma.pdf)
Jamie Lewis, Ends and Means: Identity in Two Worlds (http://www.digitalidworld.com/article.php?id=129)
Andre Durand, Three Tiers of Identity (http://www.digitalidworld.com/article.php?id=26)
Doc Searls, Making Mydentity (http://linuxjournal.com/article/6741)

Update (February 13, 2005):
I'm glad Jamie Lewis thought more about the "ends and means" issue in Revisiting "Ends and Means". His posting prompted me to think just a little bit more and conclude that it is up to the technology providers in identity management to build technology to support the range of information dogma there will be in the market place. It is not necessarily our place to define how the rest of the world ought to feel about privay and information sharing, but rather to help the world understand the options, and to support the different entities with their different preferences. The successful technical identity system of the future will be able to navigate the pletora of different choices networked entities would prefer.

1 Comment(s):

Blogger racingsnake said...

That's well put... I like the 'dogma' point. By analogy... Digital Rights Management raises similar issues. Media creators like it, media users don't. The two dogmas are pretty hard to reconcile.

Best wishes,
Robin Wilton
(blogs.sun.com/racingsnake)

7:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home