[Dave Birch] I see privacy as an important component of a national identity management scheme, even though I’d be hard pressed to describe exactly what I mean by it.  But is this because I’m a technologically well-informed and socially-aware person or because I’m an idealistic old fart?  I’m thinking it may be the latter, remembering that "the kids don’t care… because only old people like you and me suffer from the illusion of privacy these days."  This is more than a flippant dismissal of a serious concern, it’s part of the generation "I" world view, and I’ll be writing some more about this shortly.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

My first reaction is that I refuse to take this fatalism lying down, especially when technology can deliver so much better options and possibilities.  I think that at the heart of a digital identity scheme for "the masses" must be a set of principles (Kim Cameron’s laws, for example) that set the bar higher than the Scott McNealy’s 1999 statement that "you have zero privacy anyway, get over it" approach.

I don’t want to bore people by chanting the same mantra, but the fact is that digital identity management can deliver more security and more privacy, and that seems counterintuitive to most people and therefore its difficult to explain.  I have to try and find some new ways to present this to non-specialists (such as civil servants and their management consultants).

My opinions are my own (I think) and are presented solely in my capacity as an interested member of the general public.
[posted with ecto]

Leave a Reply


Subscribe to our newsletter

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

By accepting the Terms, you consent to Consult Hyperion communicating with you regarding our events, reports and services through our regular newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime through our newsletters or by emailing us.
%d bloggers like this: