[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Brownell <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:39:51 -0500
Or what is the extent of the *system*? If all we
are talking about is authentication, then a private
authentication system exists anywhere we are
doing transactions now. Shirkey's
claims are that MS wants to control "the ontology
of life on the Internet" which isn't exactly a private
system. That seems somewhat grandiose
but if they take that on, they have to be able
to deal with the problems of identity theft
and the problems of auditable transactions.
We are not a one venue world.
I worry when the global identifier begins
to be used in local contexts without a relationship
to the original context of identification.
I am never the string. I don't care for a
machine having opinions; I care if it can
auto-email my local sheriff and he comes
to arrest me because someone decided to
use my GUID to order sex toys. I live in a
state where that is a crime. (go figure...)
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: David Brownell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> But the original question is if the means is
> system wide, can they assert ownership of means.
"Can" or "should"? If it's a private system,
there would be no problem in either sense ...