I would like to preface todays idea with a disclaimer. I am not a fan of social networking. I have never used Twitter and I maintain my Facebook account only out of a sense of obligation. However, I do try to keep track of the trends so that I can understand the online social climate. I am well aware that many people are fans of social networks. I am also aware that for savvy businesses, social networking can prove to be profitable.
If people are talking on social networks about a television show, its essentially free advertising for that show. It's in the interest of television networks to allow fans to talk about their shows. Every delay between a person watching a show and then posting about it online will reduce the number of people actually post. Today's idea is to break down some of the barriers between the television and the 'cloud.'
Imagine a cable box with an extra button on the controller. Pressing this new button would bring up an on-screen keyboard allowing the viewer to enter text. While not the best input method, it could work for short messages (a few sentences long) much like most 'tweets.' A person could easily update their twitter account while watching TV.
If the box was compatible with social networks that support tags, the cable box could automatically label the update with the name of the show being watched. A Facebook button on the remote could automatically update a person's facebook status to let people know what show they are watching. Another button could list the show as an interest on their profile.
This could even allow for a "I'm bored button" in which the TV would change to a random program currently playing that you might like based on other TV shows that you have listed as liking.
Now this is pretty much all doable just using a computer. However, the point is that removing the necessity of a computer will increase the amount of people who will network about any given show.
Integration would not need to simply be with existing systems. There could be a button to allow the viewer to punch in a number of stars. Such a simple act (presumably it could be done with a single button press) would likely see frequent use.
A large drive with technology in the past years is to make social networking more seamless. A focus of many phones is to allow people to network no matter what situation they are in.
TV networks win. If this idea where to come to fruition they would get greater exposure. Cable networks win. If they offered this system its something they could use to negotiate better deals with networks and could also attract new subscribers. Viewers win, at least those that like social networking. The only people who don't 'win' are those who don't care for social networking, but they never have to setup their box for it (entering in their Facebook and Twitter username and passwords for example).
Rather than issuing new cable boxes, this idea could also be realized through an 'add on' box. Most cable boxes that I have seen have a USB port. Presumably I/O information could be sent through this port (perhaps with a firmware update) to allow a 'Social Networking Box' to find out what show is currently being watched. The Social Networking Box could have wifi to connect to the internet and come with a special remote control designed with its unique purpose in mind while still allowing regular TV watching.
The only real problem I could imagine is when there are multiple people in the same family. However, ultimately this is not a real problem. This is not the first time I have suggested having multiple profiles on one device (see my Roku/Netflix suggestion). When taking any social network actions a menu could pop up asking which profile to take the action under. These could even be password protected if the user desired. There could also be profile buttons on the remote. There are any number of other ways this problem could be solved as well. Ultimately a creator of such a device would want to experiment with various techniques of allowing profile selection to find which works best.
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Linking Forums with Social Networking Accounts
More and more people are needing less user accounts. There are more and more sites that that users can log into with their gmail or Facebook account. Some sites just make your login name be your email address.
This tends to be useful for both the user and the providers of services. Users do not need to remember additional information and it becomes easier for them to access the sites they care about. For the sites themselves, it increases their traffic flow.
However, it seems to me that this unification of systems has not touched forums. Every forum account I have is completely unique and independent from one another.
It would be nice if, Facebook for example, created a system to associate compatible forum accounts with a Facebook account. From one webpage a user could see responses to his or her posts on all of the forums he or she uses. Someone who likes to check on their different forums daily would have no need to login to multiple sites.
This is the type of ease of use that the internet has been developing for years now. As I said above we can already see similar things happening with other types of content. I have no doubt that eventually I will see a system like this in place. However, there is probably more than just spare pocket change for the first major social network to implement this well.
This tends to be useful for both the user and the providers of services. Users do not need to remember additional information and it becomes easier for them to access the sites they care about. For the sites themselves, it increases their traffic flow.
However, it seems to me that this unification of systems has not touched forums. Every forum account I have is completely unique and independent from one another.
It would be nice if, Facebook for example, created a system to associate compatible forum accounts with a Facebook account. From one webpage a user could see responses to his or her posts on all of the forums he or she uses. Someone who likes to check on their different forums daily would have no need to login to multiple sites.
This is the type of ease of use that the internet has been developing for years now. As I said above we can already see similar things happening with other types of content. I have no doubt that eventually I will see a system like this in place. However, there is probably more than just spare pocket change for the first major social network to implement this well.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Ad Delay
Ads are fairly common on the internet. They also tend to be the way that some sites make the majority of the income that keeps them running. This is part of the reason why I do not normally use extensions such as Ad Block. There have even been a few times where I have seen ads that have been useful for me.
The problem is, today many ads are flashy and contain dynamic content. Loading these ads can take up valuable memory and bandwidth. More importantly, on an older or slower computer (such as a netbook), they can temporarily freeze up the computer.
These ads have pushed me to using Ad Block on my netbook, and that is not good for anyone. Because of the design of these ads, sites and the companies who make the ads are 'loosing out.'
But what's the solution. Less dynamic ads are less likely to have people click on them. Is it a lose-lose situation? I don't think it has to be. If web browsers, sites, and ad makers worked together they could be tagged as low priority. Before the computer would attempt to load the ad, the site would need to be completely loaded first. Furthermore it would only load if there was free CPU time to do so.
So perhaps if ads were voluntarily delayed, they wouldn't be blocked. The big reason many people block ads is because of the performance hit. Remove the performance hit and remove the need to block ads.
To encourage advertisers to take this road, extensions like ad block could perhaps be able to make an exception for delayed ads in the preferences.
Anyway, it just seems to me that people are loosing money that they don't have to.
The problem is, today many ads are flashy and contain dynamic content. Loading these ads can take up valuable memory and bandwidth. More importantly, on an older or slower computer (such as a netbook), they can temporarily freeze up the computer.
These ads have pushed me to using Ad Block on my netbook, and that is not good for anyone. Because of the design of these ads, sites and the companies who make the ads are 'loosing out.'
But what's the solution. Less dynamic ads are less likely to have people click on them. Is it a lose-lose situation? I don't think it has to be. If web browsers, sites, and ad makers worked together they could be tagged as low priority. Before the computer would attempt to load the ad, the site would need to be completely loaded first. Furthermore it would only load if there was free CPU time to do so.
So perhaps if ads were voluntarily delayed, they wouldn't be blocked. The big reason many people block ads is because of the performance hit. Remove the performance hit and remove the need to block ads.
To encourage advertisers to take this road, extensions like ad block could perhaps be able to make an exception for delayed ads in the preferences.
Anyway, it just seems to me that people are loosing money that they don't have to.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Better Website Censorship
I am going to start off and say I do not entirely agree with the ethics behind this idea. Or rather, in general I disagree with censorship intended to limit free speech, and this idea would make censoring people who disagree with your viewpoint easier. However, in the same vein of free speech and following the intentions of my website, I am making this post.
There are many sites that censor aggressively. They have admins and automated bots scowering forums and comment sections on their site. They remove any comments that do not agree with their stated viewpoints. They remove anything that questions their logic or the validity of their arguments. Some sites will report blatantly false information as accurate and prevent anyone from saying otherwise on their site.
Inevitably, if the site is remotely popular, this will spawn a backlash. Perhaps people will discuss the censorship on another website's forum. In some cases entire sites are devoted to the suppression of free speech on just website.
Ultimately, the reason this happens is because people are aware that their freedom of speech has been impinged upon. The best way to do this is simply not to let them know they have been censored.
On many sites, when an admin removes a comment it can be a teaching moment. A person can learn 'ok, foul language is not accepted on this site,' or some similar lesson. However, if a site is removing comments because they criticize the site, they are not going to change the posters mind by doing so. Instead the poster will see that his comments have been removed and become incensed.
The way to deal with this is rather than removing 'undesired' posts, simply hide them. The only user who can see a hidden post would be the user who made the comment. There would be no indication to this user that the post has been hidden. He or she has no immediate reason to assume that they have been censored.
Likewise rather than banning someone, he is silenced. Only the admins would be aware of this, and to the silenced user his account would seem to work like normal. However, all of his posts would automatically be hidden. Any personal messages he sent to other users would never reach their recipients. A user who has banned but never realizes it may not be so quick to create a new account to 'troll.'
Now a user who has been 'censored' may eventually grow wise. If he or she has multiple accounts they will catch on quickly. However, the reason many people create multiple accounts is to work around bans or previous censorship. If they are blissfully unaware that no one is reading their comments, they may never bother creating a dummy account.
The other way in which they may grow wise is if they notice that people never seem to respond to their comments. However, it is not uncommon to make a comment on a website and have no one respond to it, even if they can read it. People often skim longer posts and threads and miss some comments. Depending on the situation, I could see a large period of time passing before someone finally caught on. They could, for some time, simply think the other users are bad at reading or paying attention.
If the site wanted to be really tricky, they would have bots that would create automated replies to any threads that a 'banned' user would create. He or she would be the only user who could see these replies. Effectively it creates a labyrinth of a subform to trap 'trolls.' They may eventually learn of the deception and escape, but until they do, they have been neutralized.
To throw people of the trail the occasional thread could be deleted traditionally and the occasional user could be straight up banned. For example if someone used fowl language, they may even expect to see their post removed, and doing so could keep them from being suspicious. The deception, hiding their posts from everyone but them, could be reserved for only the posts that dissent from the viewpoint your site promotes.
Now there could be even larger backlash if users discovered that this technique was used. However, sites that are already censoring opposing viewpoints are already facing disparaging remarks on other sites and this could let them avoid that. Yes, it is deceptive, but many sites do not mind deceptive. Would I ever use such a system on this blog? No. Of course it may be hard to figure out.
On a lighter note, the method of 'silencing' users rather than banning them could be effectively used even on sites that do not try to limit people's expression. Yes, it is still deceptive, but all sites have to deal with trolls. And sometimes a troll isn't someone who disagrees with you but is a legitimate jerk who is disrupting a site and needs to go.
There are many sites that censor aggressively. They have admins and automated bots scowering forums and comment sections on their site. They remove any comments that do not agree with their stated viewpoints. They remove anything that questions their logic or the validity of their arguments. Some sites will report blatantly false information as accurate and prevent anyone from saying otherwise on their site.
Inevitably, if the site is remotely popular, this will spawn a backlash. Perhaps people will discuss the censorship on another website's forum. In some cases entire sites are devoted to the suppression of free speech on just website.
Ultimately, the reason this happens is because people are aware that their freedom of speech has been impinged upon. The best way to do this is simply not to let them know they have been censored.
On many sites, when an admin removes a comment it can be a teaching moment. A person can learn 'ok, foul language is not accepted on this site,' or some similar lesson. However, if a site is removing comments because they criticize the site, they are not going to change the posters mind by doing so. Instead the poster will see that his comments have been removed and become incensed.
The way to deal with this is rather than removing 'undesired' posts, simply hide them. The only user who can see a hidden post would be the user who made the comment. There would be no indication to this user that the post has been hidden. He or she has no immediate reason to assume that they have been censored.
Likewise rather than banning someone, he is silenced. Only the admins would be aware of this, and to the silenced user his account would seem to work like normal. However, all of his posts would automatically be hidden. Any personal messages he sent to other users would never reach their recipients. A user who has banned but never realizes it may not be so quick to create a new account to 'troll.'
Now a user who has been 'censored' may eventually grow wise. If he or she has multiple accounts they will catch on quickly. However, the reason many people create multiple accounts is to work around bans or previous censorship. If they are blissfully unaware that no one is reading their comments, they may never bother creating a dummy account.
The other way in which they may grow wise is if they notice that people never seem to respond to their comments. However, it is not uncommon to make a comment on a website and have no one respond to it, even if they can read it. People often skim longer posts and threads and miss some comments. Depending on the situation, I could see a large period of time passing before someone finally caught on. They could, for some time, simply think the other users are bad at reading or paying attention.
If the site wanted to be really tricky, they would have bots that would create automated replies to any threads that a 'banned' user would create. He or she would be the only user who could see these replies. Effectively it creates a labyrinth of a subform to trap 'trolls.' They may eventually learn of the deception and escape, but until they do, they have been neutralized.
To throw people of the trail the occasional thread could be deleted traditionally and the occasional user could be straight up banned. For example if someone used fowl language, they may even expect to see their post removed, and doing so could keep them from being suspicious. The deception, hiding their posts from everyone but them, could be reserved for only the posts that dissent from the viewpoint your site promotes.
Now there could be even larger backlash if users discovered that this technique was used. However, sites that are already censoring opposing viewpoints are already facing disparaging remarks on other sites and this could let them avoid that. Yes, it is deceptive, but many sites do not mind deceptive. Would I ever use such a system on this blog? No. Of course it may be hard to figure out.
On a lighter note, the method of 'silencing' users rather than banning them could be effectively used even on sites that do not try to limit people's expression. Yes, it is still deceptive, but all sites have to deal with trolls. And sometimes a troll isn't someone who disagrees with you but is a legitimate jerk who is disrupting a site and needs to go.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Restaurant Wait App
After thinking about my last idea for a bit I came to a conclusion. While it would be useful and some places would be honest, there needs to be accountability or else many places will simply fudge the wait times as they do now.
There is a fairly straightforward solution, an iphone or google droid app.
When a restaurant quotes a wait time, the user boots the app and enters in the quoted time. The user then presses another button when they are finally seated. Based on GPS coordinates the phone will try to identify the restaurant and suggest the location, but if it is wrong the user can enter it in manually.
This information would be uploaded to a website and restaurants would be ranked by not only their actual wait time, but also their honesty.
There is also sorts of ways the information could be displayed for users. It could show break downs based on time and day. It could also rank the restaurant with the times normalized by different metrics.
If a particular restaurant is all ready in the database, the average wait and honesty score of a restaurant would come up when the user starts the app.
While it would still be possible for restaurants to manipulate the data, it would be much more difficult and they could not simply 'lie.'
The app could even support comments and reviews of places along with average price per person in order to be a complete solution.
If people used this app, less than honest restaurants might begin to see customers turning away from their door. This method of accountability could encourage honesty with wait times and allow the method I outlined the other day to work to its full potential.
There is a fairly straightforward solution, an iphone or google droid app.
When a restaurant quotes a wait time, the user boots the app and enters in the quoted time. The user then presses another button when they are finally seated. Based on GPS coordinates the phone will try to identify the restaurant and suggest the location, but if it is wrong the user can enter it in manually.
This information would be uploaded to a website and restaurants would be ranked by not only their actual wait time, but also their honesty.
There is also sorts of ways the information could be displayed for users. It could show break downs based on time and day. It could also rank the restaurant with the times normalized by different metrics.
If a particular restaurant is all ready in the database, the average wait and honesty score of a restaurant would come up when the user starts the app.
While it would still be possible for restaurants to manipulate the data, it would be much more difficult and they could not simply 'lie.'
The app could even support comments and reviews of places along with average price per person in order to be a complete solution.
If people used this app, less than honest restaurants might begin to see customers turning away from their door. This method of accountability could encourage honesty with wait times and allow the method I outlined the other day to work to its full potential.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Online Restaurant Wait Time Report
It's annoying to drive up to a restaurant and see a huge number of people and just know there is going to be a long wait. The restaurant probably loves the business, but there is a down side for them. After this happens a couple time at the same restaurant I become less inclined to going back even in the off-hours. They just lost a customer. However, if I knew for a fact there wouldn't be a wait, I might still be inclined to go early. Or if I knew that the wait usually died down past a certain hour, then I might consider pushing back my dinner.
Many restaurants are already digitalizes table assignments and food orders. They punch in when people are at a table, and enter in when they leave. Its not hard to imagine that this information could be entered into an algorithm and converted into a 'wait time.' This information could then be dynamically updated on the restaurant's website.When trying to decide where to go to dinner, you could just load up the websites of your favorite websites and see who has the shortest wait.
If they wanted to be really helpful they could provide past averages based on hour and day. So perhaps at 4 pm on a Thursday night, you see that they have a 45 minute wait at the moment, but usually by 6 pm its only 10 minutes. So you decide to do a later dinner.
I could even imagine people creating a website that would spider crawl the restaurants in the area and reports all the wait times at places to eat within a 25 mile radius of your address.
Now restaurants could just lie. It seems to me that they already do this when you ask how long the wait is. Its obvious why. They don't want you to leave, and if you hang around for a bit, even if the wait is twice as long as they said, you will probably end up staying until they seat you. But if they were honest on the site they might ward customers off before they even arrive. However, I am of the opinion, that they are sacrificing long term business for short term business when they lie about the wait.
A system like this would reward places that can keep the wait time down and are honest about it. The wait will become a point in their favor. If they honestly report when their busy hours are, some people who might just walk away when seeing the wait may instead show up at a less busy time. Meanwhile if a restaurant is always reporting fake wait times, well people will hopefully catch onto that fairly quickly.
Some restaurants would need to upgrade their computer systems (or install them completely) to be able to get something like this to work easily. A system that could not be automated would likely be too much work for a restaurant to be worth it.
I think this could be a great feature. It could help make the decision of where to eat, and I could imagine choosing a restaurant that reports its wait time over one that does not. Ultimately there is very little preventing many restaurants from setting up a an Online Wait Time Report system right now.
Many restaurants are already digitalizes table assignments and food orders. They punch in when people are at a table, and enter in when they leave. Its not hard to imagine that this information could be entered into an algorithm and converted into a 'wait time.' This information could then be dynamically updated on the restaurant's website.When trying to decide where to go to dinner, you could just load up the websites of your favorite websites and see who has the shortest wait.
If they wanted to be really helpful they could provide past averages based on hour and day. So perhaps at 4 pm on a Thursday night, you see that they have a 45 minute wait at the moment, but usually by 6 pm its only 10 minutes. So you decide to do a later dinner.
I could even imagine people creating a website that would spider crawl the restaurants in the area and reports all the wait times at places to eat within a 25 mile radius of your address.
Now restaurants could just lie. It seems to me that they already do this when you ask how long the wait is. Its obvious why. They don't want you to leave, and if you hang around for a bit, even if the wait is twice as long as they said, you will probably end up staying until they seat you. But if they were honest on the site they might ward customers off before they even arrive. However, I am of the opinion, that they are sacrificing long term business for short term business when they lie about the wait.
A system like this would reward places that can keep the wait time down and are honest about it. The wait will become a point in their favor. If they honestly report when their busy hours are, some people who might just walk away when seeing the wait may instead show up at a less busy time. Meanwhile if a restaurant is always reporting fake wait times, well people will hopefully catch onto that fairly quickly.
Some restaurants would need to upgrade their computer systems (or install them completely) to be able to get something like this to work easily. A system that could not be automated would likely be too much work for a restaurant to be worth it.
I think this could be a great feature. It could help make the decision of where to eat, and I could imagine choosing a restaurant that reports its wait time over one that does not. Ultimately there is very little preventing many restaurants from setting up a an Online Wait Time Report system right now.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Scam Review Site
There are various sites where people can report scams, but thats not what this idea is about.
If you are familiar with Snopes I envision a site in a similar vein. If you are not familiar with it, basically it is a site that investigates and either debunks or confirms urban legends.
The Scam Review Site basically would do the same thing but with scams.
They would look at as seen on TV products, email Scams, and basically anything that seems to good to be true. They could classify things either as Dangerous Rip Offs (for scams that will steal your identity), Total Rip Offs (for scams that charge you for nothing, or contain hidden fees or hard to cancel subscription), Partial Rip Offs (for scams that sell things that sort of work, but not nearly as advertises), and finally Real Deal (for things that seem like scams but aren't).
The site would rely on a combination of independent investigation and user feedback. Ultimately there are likely too many scams out there to deal with them all, but the site would focus on the 'popular' ones of the day.
A good tag line for the site could be "When it seems too good to be true." And that is basically how you would want to market it. The idea you would want to market is that if someone is online and sees something that seems absolutely amazing, and they ask themselves How can they offer such a great deal!, they will then go to the Scam Review Site to find out what the real deal really is.
As I mentioned earlier I have seen websites that talk about scams, but nothing that seems to be comprehensive. And definitely nothing as recognized as Snopes is in its field of urban legends.
It might take a while for the site to gain momentum, but if made accessible and properly marketed, I could envision it being a big hit.
If you are familiar with Snopes I envision a site in a similar vein. If you are not familiar with it, basically it is a site that investigates and either debunks or confirms urban legends.
The Scam Review Site basically would do the same thing but with scams.
They would look at as seen on TV products, email Scams, and basically anything that seems to good to be true. They could classify things either as Dangerous Rip Offs (for scams that will steal your identity), Total Rip Offs (for scams that charge you for nothing, or contain hidden fees or hard to cancel subscription), Partial Rip Offs (for scams that sell things that sort of work, but not nearly as advertises), and finally Real Deal (for things that seem like scams but aren't).
The site would rely on a combination of independent investigation and user feedback. Ultimately there are likely too many scams out there to deal with them all, but the site would focus on the 'popular' ones of the day.
A good tag line for the site could be "When it seems too good to be true." And that is basically how you would want to market it. The idea you would want to market is that if someone is online and sees something that seems absolutely amazing, and they ask themselves How can they offer such a great deal!, they will then go to the Scam Review Site to find out what the real deal really is.
As I mentioned earlier I have seen websites that talk about scams, but nothing that seems to be comprehensive. And definitely nothing as recognized as Snopes is in its field of urban legends.
It might take a while for the site to gain momentum, but if made accessible and properly marketed, I could envision it being a big hit.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Identification and the Intenet
We trust the government to do a lot of things. One of these things that receives little objection and that we do not think about is identification. Society relies on birth certificates, social security numbers, and drivers licenses to identify individuals.
However none of these help much with identification on the internet. You can not see these 'documents' in person to assure their authenticity and you can not look at the person to make sure their picture matches.
Yet identification is of critical importance on the internet.
If a person is banned from a forum, nothing is really to stop them from just creating a new profile. Online polls can be spamed by the same person over and over again. The ease of having dummy accounts leads to an increase in spam.
But at the same time anonymity is valued on the internet. Well I put forward that we can have the best of both worlds.
Image that the federal government instituted a Internet ID or IID service. To register you would need to go in person to your DMV. You would create a username and password that would then be associated with your identity.
Now if a website wanted to check your IID, they would have a button on their signup page while you are filling out the signup form. The button would redirect you towards the governments IID website. There you confirm your identity and the IID site sends back either an 'ok' or 'not ok' message to the original site. The IID will only send an 'ok' message if two things happen:
1) The IID site is able to verify the users identity.
2) The IID site checks a database checks a database to determine if the user has already created a profile on the site.
All the original site knows is if the IID site was able to confirm your identity. They don't know who you are, but they know that this is your first time creating a profile. They are never exposed to your IID profile name or password. You are still anonymous.
Using this would not be required. It would simply be a service offered up by the government. Websites may choose to make it a mandatory part of their registration process, but that is up to them.
I suspect private companies have likely tried doing something like this before. The problem is, the system needs to be unified and trustworthy if people are going to bother signing up for it. Hopefully people would not be worried about the government selling their personal information (because it all ready has a lot of it).
People could even create some sort of public profile that could sit on top of their IID. They would not need to use their real name, but this profile (essentially a 2nd username and password) would be tied to their IID. Sites that support this Universal IID (UIID) could allow people to login in with their UIID without first registering at the site. Personally I hate having to register at a site I am only going to use once. This would help mitigate this annoyance.
Now there is one problem with this proposal. The 'www' part of most urls. The internet is world wide. If a website required an IID verification to login, then citizens of other nations would have no way of logging into the site. If they allowed people not from the US to register without an IID, then what is the point of the whole thing.
If we allowed other nations to participate in the IID system we would need to ensure that they are being rigorous about checking people's identity when they first register. If they were being lax in this the entire system would be undermined.
I do not know how to deal with this problem. Perhaps I could think of a way with enough thought. It may also be that there is no way to implement such a system without isolating our websites from the rest of the world. And that would certainly not be acceptable.
However none of these help much with identification on the internet. You can not see these 'documents' in person to assure their authenticity and you can not look at the person to make sure their picture matches.
Yet identification is of critical importance on the internet.
If a person is banned from a forum, nothing is really to stop them from just creating a new profile. Online polls can be spamed by the same person over and over again. The ease of having dummy accounts leads to an increase in spam.
But at the same time anonymity is valued on the internet. Well I put forward that we can have the best of both worlds.
Image that the federal government instituted a Internet ID or IID service. To register you would need to go in person to your DMV. You would create a username and password that would then be associated with your identity.
Now if a website wanted to check your IID, they would have a button on their signup page while you are filling out the signup form. The button would redirect you towards the governments IID website. There you confirm your identity and the IID site sends back either an 'ok' or 'not ok' message to the original site. The IID will only send an 'ok' message if two things happen:
1) The IID site is able to verify the users identity.
2) The IID site checks a database checks a database to determine if the user has already created a profile on the site.
All the original site knows is if the IID site was able to confirm your identity. They don't know who you are, but they know that this is your first time creating a profile. They are never exposed to your IID profile name or password. You are still anonymous.
Using this would not be required. It would simply be a service offered up by the government. Websites may choose to make it a mandatory part of their registration process, but that is up to them.
I suspect private companies have likely tried doing something like this before. The problem is, the system needs to be unified and trustworthy if people are going to bother signing up for it. Hopefully people would not be worried about the government selling their personal information (because it all ready has a lot of it).
People could even create some sort of public profile that could sit on top of their IID. They would not need to use their real name, but this profile (essentially a 2nd username and password) would be tied to their IID. Sites that support this Universal IID (UIID) could allow people to login in with their UIID without first registering at the site. Personally I hate having to register at a site I am only going to use once. This would help mitigate this annoyance.
Now there is one problem with this proposal. The 'www' part of most urls. The internet is world wide. If a website required an IID verification to login, then citizens of other nations would have no way of logging into the site. If they allowed people not from the US to register without an IID, then what is the point of the whole thing.
If we allowed other nations to participate in the IID system we would need to ensure that they are being rigorous about checking people's identity when they first register. If they were being lax in this the entire system would be undermined.
I do not know how to deal with this problem. Perhaps I could think of a way with enough thought. It may also be that there is no way to implement such a system without isolating our websites from the rest of the world. And that would certainly not be acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)