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]