I gave this talk a few months ago. I had just finished writing our 2013 Identity and Privacy Planning Guide and was trying to think of a different way to express what I had written. What I came up with was this very very different way to express what I had written. I’d love your feedback. Also, no commas were harmed in the filming of this presentation.
|
|||
|
These are my raw notes put here for reference purposes. – Attendees
What is mean by identity oracle? * An oracle provides an answer to a question but not a specific attribute ** If you ask an Oracle, is Peter over 21 it says yes. It does not hand back an attribute – birthdate Peter: The Federal Govt is authoritative for very few attributes – State Dept – passport #, citizenship. State govt are authoritative for driver’s license number. SSA for SSN. eVerfify is an example of an oracle, says Gerry. Peter – what will drive this is the requirement for LOA3 credentials needed to access to medical records. P – “We do not have an attribute infrastructure.” A lot of attributes are simply issued via IdP’ I – our examples so far have shown organizations that are authoritative for identifiers but not attributes P – raises need for back end attribute exchange Gerry – Problem with authoritative attribute provides is that the PDP makes a decision as to what is truly authoritative for a given context. Authoritative data source must provide SLA or MOU so that relying party can establish trust. P – BAE is 1/2 of the equation and attribute provider (market?) is the other half A – is there a business model for attribute providers? I’ve been a bit quiet on Tuesdaynight lately… sorry – it has been a bit crazy around here lately. At any rate, we are 7 days away from Burton Group Catalyst EU! In the 7+ years that I’ve been involved in one way shape or form with Burton Group, I’ve never been to a Catalyst EU – so I am very excited. For those of you joining us, you are in for a treat – John Seely Brown will delivering the keynote for us. Besides Mr. Brown, the IdPS team has got some great content waiting for you:
Fun for the whole family… For those of you not heading to Prague, follow the conversation on Twitter. We’ll be using the #cat10 for the conference and the identity conversation will be on #idps. See you there either in person or virtually… A friend in the industry recently asked me for my thoughts on OpenID, InfoCards, and the US federal government’s work to consume non-government issued credentials. Letting the question rattle around in my head for a while, here’s what I’ve got so far. My hope is that the overall ICAM initiative is successful—not because I have been eagerly waiting to interact with the federal government using some form of authenticated credential—but because we (citizens, enterprises and government) are at a pivotal moment in the history of the web. With the US government working with both the OpenID and InfoCard Foundations, there exists an opportunity to change how individuals interact with large organizations, both public and private. For the first time, individuals would be able to (even encouraged to) interact with a large organization (such as the US federal government) using an identity asserted, not by the large organization, but by the individual. In this case, the State is no longer the sole provider of identity. This breaks the monopoly that the State has had on credentials and is indicative of the future to come. But there is a long road to walk before getting there. There are numerous concerns with these plans. Among these are notable security concerns, especially with OpenID, that the identity community is not blind to. These are not my primary concerns. Last week I was at the recent Department of Homeland Security’s Government 2.0 Privacy and Best Practices conference. Not surprisingly the subject of transparency came up again and again. One thing that definitely caught my attention was a comment by one of the panelists that efforts towards government transparency are too often focused on data transparency rather than process transparency. While we have Data.gov as one of the current administration’s steps towards furthering government transparency, we do not have an analogous Process.gov. Said another way – we get the sausage but don’t get to see how it is made. This isn’t transparent government but translucent government. From what I’ve seen I’d say that enterprises have achieved the opposite kind of translucency with their identity management programs. Though enterprises have achieved some degree of process transparency by suffering through the pains of documenting, engineering, and re-engineering process, they haven’t been able to achieve data transparency. Identity information has yet to become readily available throughout the enterprise in ways that the business can take advantage of. Identity information (such as entitlements) has yet to achieve enterprise master-data status. Worse yet, the quality of identity data still lags behind the quality of identity-related processes in the enterprise. For those of you attending the Advanced Role Management workshop at Catalyst this year, you’ll hear me and Kevin present the findings from our recent roles research. Throughout our interviews we heard identity teams discuss their struggles with data management and data quality. Finding authoritative sources of information, relying on self-certified entitlement information, and decoding arcane resource codes were just some of the struggles we heard. No one said that identity data transparency was easy, but without it enterprises can only achieve identity translucency and not true transparency. |
|
||
|
Copyright © 2013 tuesdaynight - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
|||
what others say