The Right To Correlate

Dave Kearns’ comment in Another Violent Agreement convinces me I've got to apply the scalpel to the way I talk about correlation handles.  Dave writes:

‘I took Kim at his word when he talked “about the need to prevent correlation handles and assembly of information across contexts…” That does sound like “banning the tools.”

‘So I'm pleased to say I agree with his clarification of today:

;”I agree that we must influence behaviors as well as develop tools… [but] there’s a huge gap between the kind of data correlation done at a person’s request as part of a relationship (VRM), and the data correlation I described in my post that is done without a person’s consent or knowledge.” (Emphasis added by Dave)’

Thinking about this some more, it seems we might be able to use a delegation paradigm.

The “right to correlate”

Let's postulate that only the parties to a transaction have the right to correlate the data in the transaction (unless it is fully anonymized).

Then it would follow that any two parties with whom an individual interacts would not by default have the right to correlate data they had each collected in their separate transactions.

On the other hand, the individual would have the right to organize and correlate her own data across all the parties with whom she interacts since she was party to all the transactions.

Delegating the Right to Correlate

If we introduce the ability to delegate, then an individual could delegate her right for two parties to correlate relevant data about her.  For example, I could delegate to Alaska Airlines and British Airways the right to share information about me.

Similarly, if I were an optimistic person, I could opt to use a service like that envisaged by Dave Kearns, which “can discern our real desires from our passing whims and organize our quest for knowledge, experience and – yes – material things in ways which we can only dream about now.”  The point here is that we would delegate the right to correlate to this service operating on our behalf.

Revoking the Right to Correlate

A key aspect of delegating a right is the ability to revoke that delegation.  In other words, if the service to which I had given some set of rights became annoying or odious, I would need to be able terminate its right to correlate.  Importantly, the right applies to correlation itself.  Thus when the right is revoked, the data must no longer be linkable in any way.


There are cases where criminal activity is being investigated or proven where it is necessary for law enforcement to be able to correlate without the consent of the individual.  This is already the case in western society and it seems likely that new mechanisms would not be required in a world resepcting the Right to Correlate.

Defining contexts

Respecting the Right to Correlate would not by itself solve the Canadian Tire Problem that started this thread.  The thing that made the Canadian Tire human experiments most odious is that they correlated buying habits at the level of individual purchases (our relations to Canadian Tire as a store)  with  probable behavior in paying off credit cards (Canadian Tire as a credit card issuer).  Paradoxically, someone's loyalty to the store could actually be used to deny her credit.  People who get Canadian Tire credit cards do know that the company is in a position to correlate all this information, but are unlikely to predict this counter-intuitive outcome.

Those of us prefering mainstream credit card companies presumably don't have the same issues at this point in time.  They know where we buy but not what we buy (although there may be data sharing relationships with merchants that I am not aware of… Let me know…).

So we have come to the the most important long-term problem:  The Internet changes the rules of the game by making data correlation so very easy.

It potentially turns every credit card company into a data-correlating Canadian Tire.  Are we looking at the Canadian Tirization of the Internet?

But do people care?

Some will say that none of this matters because people just don't care about what is correlated.  I'll discuss that briefly in my next post.

Trends in what is known about us

We know how the web feeds itself in a chain reaction powered by the assembly and location of information.  We love it.  Bringing information together that was previously compartmentalized has made it far easier to find out what is happening and avoid thinking narrowly.  In some cases it has even changed the fundamentals of how we work and interact.  The blogosphere identity conversation is an example of this.  We are able to learn from each other across the industry and adjust to evolving trends in a fluid way, rather than “projecting” what other peoples’ thinking and motivations might be.  In this sense the content of what we are doing is related to the medium through which we do it.

Information accumulates power by being put into proximity and aggregated.   This even appears to be an inherent property of information itself.  Of course information can't effect its own aggregation, but easily finds hosts who are motivated to do so: businesses, governments, researchers, industries, libraries, data centers – and the indefatigable search engine.

Some forms of aggregation involve breaking down the separation between domains of facts.  Facts are initially discerned within a context.   But as  contexts flow together and merge , the facts are visible from new perspectives.  We can think of them as “views”.

Information trends and digital identity 

How does this fundamental tendency of information to reorganize itself relate to digital identity?

This is clearly a complicated question.  But it is perhaps one of the most important questions of our time – one that needs to come to the attention of students, academics, policy makers, legislators, and through them, the general public.   The answer will affect everyone.

It is hard to clearly explain and discuss trends that are so infrastructural.  Those of us working on these issues have concepts that apply, but the concepts don't really have satisfactory names, and just aren't crisp enough.  We aren't ready for a wider conversation about the things we have seen.

Recently I've been trying to organize my own thinking about this through a grid expressing, on one axis, the tendency of context to merge; and, on the other, the spectrum of data visibility:

Tendency of data to join and become visible

The spectrum of visibility extends from a single individual on the left to everyone in the society on the right  [if reading a text feed please check the graphic – Kim]

The spectrum of contextual separation extends from complete separation of information by context at the top, to complete joining of data across contexts at the bottom.

I've represented the tendency of information to aggregate as the arrow leading from separation to full join, and this should be considered a dynamic tendency of the system.

Where do we fit in this picture?

Now lets set up a few markers from which we can calibrate this field.  For example, let's take what I've labelled “Today's public personas”.  I'm talking about what we reveal about ourselves in the public realm.  Because it's public, it's on the “Visible to all” part of the spectrum.  Yet for most of us, it is a relatively narrow set of information that is revealed – our names, property we own, aspects of our professional lives.  Thus our public personas remain relatively contextual.

You can imagine variants on this – for example a show-business personality who might be situated further to the right than the “public persona”, being known by more people.  Further, additional aspects of such a person's life might be known, which would be represented by moving down towards the bottom of the quadrant (or even further).    

I've also included a marker that represents the kind of commercial relationships encountered in today's western society.  Now we're on the “Visible to some” part of the visibility spectrum. In some cases (e.g. our dealings with lawyers), this marker would hopefully be located further to the left, indicating fewer parties to the information.  The current location implies some overlapping of context and sharing across parties – for example, transactions visible to credit card companies, merchants, and third parties in their employ.

Going forward, I'll look at what happens as the dynamic towards data joining asserts itself in this model.

All about Phorm

The Law of User Control is hard at work in a growing controversy about interception of people's web traffic in the United Kingdom.  At the center of the storm is the “patent-pending” technology of a new company called Phorm.  It's web site advises:

Leading UK ISPs BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, along with advertisers, agencies, publishers and ad networks, work with Phorm to make online advertising more relevant, rewarding and valuable. (View press release.)

Phorm's proprietary ad serving technology uses anonymised ISP data to deliver the right ad to the right person at the right time – the right number of times. Our platform gives consumers advertising that's tailored to their interests – in real time – with irrelevant ads replaced in the process.

What makes the technology behind OIX and Webwise truly groundbreaking is that it takes consumer privacy protection to a new level. Our technology doesn't store any personally identifiable information or IP addresses, and we don't retain information on user browsing behaviour. So we never know – and can't record – who's browsing, or where they've browsed.

It is counterintuitive to see claims of increased privacy posited as the outcome of a tracking system.  But even if that happened to be true, it seems like the system is being laid on the population as a fait accompli by the big powerful ISPs.  It doesn't seem that users will be able to avoid having their traffic redirected and inspected.  And early tests of the system were branded “illegal” by Nicholas Bohm of the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR). 

Is Phorm completely wrong?  Probably not.  Respected and wise privacy activist Simon Davies has done an Interim Privacy Impact Assessment that argues (in part):

In our view, Phorm has successfully implemented privacy as a key design component in the development of its Phorm Technology system. In contrast to the design of other targeting systems, careful choices have been made to ensure that privacy is preserved to the greatest possible extent. In particular, Phorm has quite consciously avoided the processing of personally identifiable information.

Simon seems to be suggesting we consider Phorm in relation to the current alternatives – which may be worse.

To make a judgment we need to really understand how Phorm's system works.  Dr. Richard Clayton, a computer security researcher at the University of Cambridge and a participant in Light Blue Touchpaper, has published a succinct ten page explanation that that is a must-read for anyone who is a protocol head.

Richard says his technical analysis of the Phorm online advertising system has reinforced his view that it is “illegal”, breaking laws designed to limit unwarranted interception of data.

The British Information Commissioners Office confirmed to the BBC that BT is planning a large-scale trial of the technology “involving around 10,000 broadband users later this month”.  The ICO said: “We have spoken to BT about this trial and they have made clear that unless customers positively opt in to the trial their web browsing will not be monitored in order to deliver adverts.”

Having quickly read Richard's description of the actual protocol, it isn't yet clear to me that if you opt out, your web traffic isn't still being examined and redirected.  But there is worse. I have to admit to a sense of horror when I realized the system rewards ISPs for abusing their trusted role in the Internet by improperly posing as other peoples’ domains in order to create fraudulent cookies and place them on users machines.  Is there a worse precedent?  How come ISPs can do this kind of thing and other can't?  Or perhaps now they can…

To accord with the Laws of Identity, no ISP would examine or redirect packets to a Phorm-related server unless a user explicitly opted-in to such a service.  Opting in should involve explicitly accepting Phorm as a justifiable witness to all web interactions, and agreeing to be categorized by the Phorm systems.

The system is devised to aggregate across contexts, and thus runs counter to the Fourth Law of Identity.  It claims to mitigate this by reducing profiling to categorization information.  However, I don't buy that.  Categorization, practiced at a grand enough scale and over a sufficient period of time, potentially becomes more privacy invasive than a regularly truncated audit trail.    Thus there must be mechanisms for introducing amnesia into the categorization itself.

Phorm would therefore require clearly defined mechanisms for deprecating and deleting profile information over time, and these should be made clear during the opt-in process.

I also have trouble with the notion that in Phorm identities are “anonymized”.  As I understand it, each user is given a persistent random ID.  Whenever the user accesses the ISP, the ISP can see the link between the random ID and the user's natural identity.  I understand that ISPs will prevent Phorm from knowing the user's natural identity.  That is certainly better than many other systems.  But I still wouldn't claim the system is based on anonymity.  It is based on controlling the release of information.

[Podcasts are available here]

Microsoft says, “U-Prove it”

Ralf Bendrath chided me yesterday for bragging about having proven Bruce Schneier wrong in his concern that there is not a “viable business model” for the Credentica technology.  (In my defense, Bruce had said, “I'd like to be proven wrong.”, and I was just trying to oblige him.)

Anyway,  I think Joe Wilcox's article in eWeek's Microsoft Watch provides some unbiased analysis of the issue.

Sometimes, Microsoft really spends its money well, such as last week's acquisition of U-Prove technology from Credentica.

This is a damn, exciting acquisition. It's strategic and timely.

U-Prove is, simply put, a privacy/security protection mechanism. The technology works on a simple principle: Enable transactions by revealing as little information as possible.

Credentica's Stefan Brands, Christian Paquin and Greg Thompson have joined Microsoft, where they will work as part of the Identity and Access Group. Microsoft also acquired associated U-Prove patents.

Brands is a well-regarded cryptographer and author of “Rethinking Public Key Infrastructures and Digital Certificates; Building in Privacy,” which explains the principles behind U-Prove. The book is available for free download, courtesy of MIT Press. He brings a somewhat radical approach to cryptography: Disclose or collect little—ideally no—private information during any transaction process. During most transactions, whether online or offline, too much personal information is exposed.

I vaguely recall Brands from Zero-Knowledge Systems, where he went in early 2000. About six months earlier I consulted Zero-Knowledge Systems’ chief scientist for a story about an alleged cryptographic flaw/back door in then unreleased Windows 2000.

Brands, his colleagues and U-Prove will first go into Windows Cardspace and Windows Communications Foundation. Microsoft's Brendon Lynch explained in a Thursday blog post:

“Credentica's U-Prove technology will help people protect their identities by enabling them to disclose only the minimum amount of information needed for a transaction—sometimes no personal information may be needed at all. When this technology is broadly available in Microsoft products (such as Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Cardspace), enterprises, governments and consumers all stand to benefit from the enhanced security and privacy that it will enable. We look forward to a world where people have more control of their personal information and are better protected from harms of online fraud and identity theft.”

Kim Cameron, Microsoft's identity architect, does a wonderful job explaining Brands’ “minimal disclosure” approach in a Thursday blog post and how the company may apply it. The basic concept: to use other cryptographic means to verify identity “without revealing the signature applied by the identity provider.”

Microsoft has made one helluva good acquisition, whose potential long-term benefits I simply cannot overstate. The company has been trying to tackle the identity problem for nearly a decade. Early days, Passport acted as a single sign-on for multiple services, a heritage Windows Live ID expanded. But U-Prove departs from Microsoft's past identity efforts. The idea is to identify you without, well, identifying you.

Microsoft online services would look dramatically different with an identity mechanism that truly protected privacy and security on both sides of the transaction all while guaranteeing both parties that they are who they say they are, without necessarily saying who they are.

The best conceptual analogy I can think of is Swiss or offshore banking, where an account holder presents a numerical token or tokens that verify his or her right to account access but not the individual's identity or necessarily the token's issuer. Such a mechanism could be a boon to business and consumer confidence in online transactions as well as reduce petty fraud.

Microsoft's money would be better spent on more acquisitions like this one, rather than frittering away valuable resources on Yahoo. Microsoft is operating on the false premise that Google's huge search lead also puts it ahead in advertising—too far to catch up without a means of leaping ahead. Yahoo is the means.

But Microsoft is mistaken. Online activities and transactions are more complex than that. Search is one strategic technology, but there are others that Google doesn't control. If Microsoft could take a strategic lead protecting identity around transactions, the company could better enable all kinds of Web activities, and in so doing raise its online credibility. Privacy concerns have dogged Google.

I think Microsoft should take half of its proposed Yahoo offer and spend it on more acquisitions like Credentica's U-Prove technology. I'm not the first to suggest that Microsoft spend $20 billion on smaller companies. But I will say that U-Prove is an example what Microsoft should do to bolster its online technology portfolio in more meaningful ways, without taking on the hardship of a large, messy acquisition like Yahoo.

Ralf Bendrath on the Credentica acquisition

Privacy, security and Internet researcher and activist Ralf Bendrath is a person who thinks about privacy deeply. The industry has a lot to learn from him about modelling and countering privacy threats. Here is his view of the recent credentica acquisition:

Microsoft has acquired Montreal-based privacy technology company Credentica. While that probably means nothing to most of you out there, it is one of the most important and promising developments in the digital identity world.

My main criticism around user-centric identity management has been that the identity provider (the party that you and others rely on, like your credit card issuer or the agency that gave you your driver's license) knows a lot about the users. Microsoft's identity architect Kim Cameron explains it very well:

[W]ith managed cards carrying claims asserted by a third party authority, it has so far been impossible, even for CardSpace, to completely avoid artifacts that allow linkage. (…) Though relying parties are not able to collude with one another, if they collude with the identity provider, a set of claims can be linked to a given user even if they contain no obvious linking information.

This is related to the digital signatures involved in the claims flows. Kim goes on:

But there is good news. Minimal disclosure technology allows the identity provider to sign the token and proof key in such a way that the user can prove the claims come legitimately from the identity provider without revealing the signature applied by the identity provider.

Stefan Brands was among the first to invent technology for minimal disclosure or “zero knowledge” proofs in the early nineties, similar to what David Chaum did with his anonymous digital cash concept. His technology was bought by the privacy firm Zero-Knowledge until they ran out of funding and gave it back to Stefan. He has since then built his own company, Credentica, and, together with his colleagues Christian Paquin and Greg Thompson, developed it into a comprehensive middleware product called “U-Prove” that was released a bit more than a year ago. U-Prove works with SAML, Liberty ID-WSF, and Windows CardSpace.

The importance of the concept of “zero-knowledge proofs” for privacy is comparable to the impact public key infrastructures (PKIs) described by Witfield Diffie and Martin Hellmann had on internet security. The U-Prove technology based on these concepts has been compared to what Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman (RSA) did for security when they were the first to offer an algorithm and a product based on PKIs.

When I was at the CFP conference in Montreal last May, I was meeting Kim and Stefan, and a colleague pointed me to the fact that Kim was being very nice to Stefan. “He has some cool patents Microsoft really wants”, my colleague said. Bruce Schneier recently also praised U-Prove, but questioned the business model for companies like Credentica. He added, “I’d like to be proven wrong.”

Kim Cameron is now bragging about having proven Bruce wrong (which is hard to imagine, given the fact that “Bruce Schneier feeds Schrödinger's cat on his back porch. Without opening the box”), while admitting that he still has no business model:

Our goal is that Minimal Disclosure Tokens will become base features of identity platforms and products, leading to the safest possible intenet. I don’t think the point here is ultimately to make a dollar. It’s about building a system of identity that can withstand the ravages that the Internet will unleash. That will be worth billions.

Stefan Brands is also really happy:

For starters, the market needs in identity and access management have evolved to a point where technologies for multi-party security and privacy can address real pains. Secondly, there is no industry player around that I believe in as much as Microsoft with regard to its commitment to build security and privacy into IT systems and applications. Add to that Microsoft’s strong presence in many of the target markets for identity and access management, its brain trust, and the fact that Microsoft can influence both the client and server side of applications like no industry player can, and it is easy to see why this is a perfect match.

A good overview of other reactions is at Kim's latest blog post. The cruicial issue has, again, been pointed out by Ben Laurie, who quotes the Microsoft Privacy Team's blog:

When this technology is broadly available in Microsoft products (such as Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Cardspace), enterprises, governments, and consumers all stand to benefit from the enhanced security and privacy that it will enable.

Ben sarcastically reads it like “the Microsoft we all know and love”, implying market domination based on proprietary technology. But the Microsoft we all know in the identity field is not the one we used to know with Passport and other crazy proprietary surveillance stuff. They have released the standards underlying the CardSpace claims exchange under an open specification promise, and Kim assures us that they will have their lawyers sort out the legal issues so anybody can use the technology:

I can guarantee everyone that I have zero intention of hoarding Minimal Disclosure Tokens or turning U-Prove into a proprietary Microsoft technology silo. Like, it’s 2008, right? Give me a break, guys!

Well. Given the fact that U-Prove is not just about claims flows, but involves fancy advanced cryptography, they really should do everybody a favour and release the source code and some libraries that contain the algorithm under a free license, and donate the patent to the public domain.

First of all, because yes – it's 2008, and “free is the new paid”, as even the IHT has discovered in January 2007.

Second, because yes – it's 2008, and there has been an alternative product out there under a free license for more than a year. IBM Research Labs Zurich have finished their Idemix identity software that works with zero-knowledge proofs in January 2007. It is part of the Higgins identity suite and will be available under an open source license. (The Eclipse lawyers seem to have been looking into this for more than a year, though. Does anybody know about the current status?)

Third, because yes – it's 2008, it's not 1882 anymore, to quote Bruce Schneier again:

A basic rule of cryptography is to use published, public, algorithms and protocols. This principle was first stated in 1883 by Auguste Kerckhoffs.

While I don't follow Ralf into every nook and cranny of his argument, I think he has a pretty balanced view.

But Ralf, you should tell your friend I was being very nice to Stefan in Montreal because I find him very amusing, especially with a scotch in him.  I would have tried to get his technology into widescale use whether I liked him or not, and I would have liked him just as much if he didn't have any patents at all.

I don't want to get into a “free is the new paid” discussion.  As the article you cite states, “Mass media given away freely or at low cost is hardly new, of course. In many countries, over-the-air television and radio have long been financed primarily by advertisers, at no direct cost to consumers.”  So what is new here?  When I can apply this paradigm to my next dinner, tell me about it. 

This having been vented, I come to exactly the same general conclusions you do:  we want a safe, privacy-friendly identity infrastructure as the basis for a safe, privacy-friendly Internet, and we should do everything possible to make it easier for everyone to bring that about.  So your suggestions go in the right direction.  If we were ultimately to give the existing code to a foundation, I would like to know what foundation people in the privacy community would suggest.

As for the business model issue, I agree with you and Bruce – and Stefan – that there is no obvious business model for a small company.  But for companies like Microsoft, our long term success depends on the flourishing of the Internet and the digital economy.  The best and most trustworthy possible identity infrastructure is key to that.  So for the Microsofts, the IBMs, the Suns and others, this technology fits very squarely into our business models.

As for the Identity and Access group at Microsoft, our goal is to have the most secure, privacy-friendly, interoperable, complete, easy to use and manageable identity products available.  As the Internet's privacy and identity problems become clearer to people, this strategy will attract many new customers and keep the loyalty of existing ones.  So there you have it.  To us, U-Prove technology is foundational to building a very significant business.

Reactions to Credentica acquisition

Network World's John Fontana has done a great job of explaining what it means for Microsoft to integrate U-Prove into its offerings:

Microsoft plans to incorporate U-Prove into both Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) and CardSpace, the user-centric identity software in Vista and XP.

Microsoft said all its servers and partner products that incorporate the WCF framework would provide support for U-Prove.

“The main point is that this will just become part of the base identity infrastructure we offer. Good privacy practices will become one of the norms of e-commerce,” Cameron said.

“The U-Prove technology looks like a good candidate as an authentication mechanism for CardSpace-managed cards (i.e., those cards issued by an identity provider),” Mark Diodati, an analyst with the Burton Group, wrote on his blog

In general, the technology ensures that users always have say over what information they release and that the data can not be linked together by the recipients. That means that recipients along the chain of disclosure can not aggregate the data they collect and piece together the user’s personal information.

[More here…]

Eric Norlin has this piece in CSO, and Nancy Gohring's ComputerWorld article emphasizes that “U-Prove is the equivalent in the privacy world of RSA in the security space.”  Burton's Mark Diodati covers the acquisition here.

Gunnar Peterson from 1 Raindrop notes in That Was Fast

…the digital natives may be getting some better tooling faster than I thought. I am sure you already know there is a northern alliance and Redmond is U-Prove enabled. I fondly remember a lengthy conversation I had with Stefan Brands in Croatia several years ago, while he patiently explained to me how misguided the security-privacy collision course way of thinking is, and instead how real security is only achieved with privacy. If you have not already, I recommend you read Stefans’ primer on user identification.

Entrepreneur and angel investor Austin Hill gives us some background and links here:

In the year 2000, Zero-Knowledge acquired the rights to Dr. Stefan Brands work and hired Stefan to help us build privacy-enhanced identity & payments systems.  It turns out we were very early into the identity game, failed to commercialize the technology – and during the Dot.Com bust cycle we shut down the business unit and released the patents back to Stefan.  This was groundbreaking stuff that Stefan had invented, and we invested heavily in trying to make it real, but there weren’t enough bitters in the market at that time.  We referred to the technologies as the “RSA” algorithms of the identity & privacy industry.  Unfortunately the ‘privacy & identity’ industry didn’t exist.

Stefan went on to found Crendentica to continue the work of commercialization of his invention. Today he announced that Microsoft has acquired his company and he and his team are joining Microsoft.

Microsoft’s Identity Architect Guru Kim Cameron has more on the deal on his blog (he mentions the RSA for privacy concept as well).

Adam Shostack (former Zero Knowledge Evil Genius, who also created a startup & currently works at Microsoft) has this post up.   George Favvas, CEO of SmartHippo (also another Zero-Knowledge/Total.Net alumni – entrepreneur) also blogged about the deal as well.

Congratulations to Stefan and the team.  This is a great deal for Microsoft, the identity industry and his team. (I know we tried to get Microsoft to buy or adopt the technology back in 2001 🙂 

(I didn't really know much about Zero-Knowledge back in 2000, but it's interesting to see how early they characterized of Stefan's technology as being the privacy equivalent of RSA.  It's wonderful to see people who are so forward-thinking.)

Analyst Neil Macehiter writes:

Credentica was founded by acknowledged security expert Stefan Brands, whose team has applied some very advanced cryptography techniques to allow users to authenticate to service providers directly without the involvement of identity providers. They also limit the disclosure of personally-identifiable information to prevent accounts being linked across service providers and provide resistance to phishing attacks. Credentica's own marketing literature highlights the synergies with CardSpace:

“`The SDK is ideally suited for creating the electronic equivalent of the cards in one's wallet and for protecting identity-related information in frameworks such as SAML, Liberty ID-WSF, and Windows CardSpace.”

This is a smart move by Microsoft. Not only does it bring some very innovative and well-respected technology (with endorsements from the likes of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada) which extends the capabilities of Microsoft's identity and security offerings; it also brings some heavyweight cryptography and privacy expertise and credibility from the Credentica team. The latter can, and undoubtedly will, be exploited by Microsoft in the short term: the former will take more time to realise with Microsoft stating that integrated offerings are at least 12–18 months away.

[More here…]

Besides the many positives, there were concerns expressed about whether Microsoft would make the technology available beyond Windows.  Ben Laurie wrote:

Kim and Stefan blog about Microsoft’s acquisition of Stefan’s selective disclosure patents and technologies, which I’ve blogged about many times before.

This is potentially great news, especially if one interprets Kim’s

Our goal is that Minimal Disclosure Tokens will become base features of identity platforms and products, leading to the safest possible intenet. I don’t think the point here is ultimately to make a dollar. It’s about building a system of identity that can withstand the ravages that the Internet will unleash.

in the most positive way. Unfortunately, comments such as this from Stefan

Microsoft plans to integrate the technology into Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Cardspace.

and this from Microsoft’s Privacy folk

When this technology is broadly available in Microsoft products (such as Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Cardspace), enterprises, governments, and consumers all stand to benefit from the enhanced security and privacy that it will enable.

sound more like the Microsoft we know and love.

I hope everyone who reads this blog knows that it is elementary, my dear Laurie, that identity technology must work across boundaries, platforms and vendors (Law 5 – not to mention, “Since the identity system has to work on all platforms, it must be safe on all platforms”). 

That doesn't mean it is trivial to figure out the best legal mecahnisms for making the intellectual property and even the code available to the ecosystem.  Lawyers are needed, and it takes a while.  But I can guarantee everyone that I have zero intention of hoarding Minimal Disclosure Tokens or turning U-Prove into a proprietary Microsoft technology silo. 

Like, it's 2008, right?  Give me a break, guys!

Know your need

Here's a great comment from the smart and witty Paul Madsen.   He really his the nail on the head with his “Know your Need” corollory

In announcing Microsoft's purchase of the Credentica patents (and hiring of Stefan's core team), Kim uses the ‘need to know’ analogy.

That danger can be addressed by adopting a need-to-know approach to the Internet.

(For the life of me, I just cannot get Sgt Shultz's ‘I know nothing’ out of my head.)

Credentica's U-prove technology promises to close off a (depending on the deployment environment, potentially big) ‘knowledge leak’ – if the IDP doesn't need to know what/where/why/when/who the user does with the assertions it creates, then the principle of minimal ‘need to know’ means that it shouldn't.

Cardspace seems a great application for U-Prove to prove itself. As Stefan points out, ‘its a good thing’ to influence/control both client and server.

Separately, I see the flip side of ‘need to know’ as ‘know your need’, i.e. entities involved in identity transactions must be able to assess and assert their needs for identity attributes. This is the CARML piece of the Identity Governance Framework). Put another way, before a decision is made as to whether or not some entity ‘needs to know’, it'd be nice to know why they are asking.

I agree that it is sometimes a positive and useful thing for a claims provider to know the user's “what, where, why, when and who”.  So everything is a matter of minimization – but within to the requirements of the scenario.

I don't actually buy the “influence/control both client and server” phraseology.  I'm fine with influence, but see control as an elusive and worthless goal.  That's not how the world works.  It works through synergy and energy radiating from everywhere, and those of us who are on this odyssey must tap into that.

Microsoft to adopt Stefan Brands’ Technology

The Internet may sometimes randomly “forget”.  But in general it doesn't. 

Once digital information is released to a few parties, it really is “out there”.  Cory Doctorow wrote recently about what he called the half-life of personal information, pointing out that personal information doesn't just “dissipate” after use.  It hangs around like radioactive waste.  You can't just push a button and get rid of it.

I personally think we are just beginning to understand what it would mean if everything we do is both remembered and automatically related to everything else we do.  No evil “Dr. No” is necessary to bring this about, although evil actors might accelerate and take advantage of the outcome.  Linkage is just a natural tendency of digital reality, similar to entropy in the physical world.  When designing phsyical systems a big part of our job is countering entropy.  And in the digital sphere, our designs need to counter linkage. 

This has led me to the idea of the “Need-to-Know Internet”.

The Need-to-Know Internet

“Need to Know” thinking comes from the military.  The precept is that if people in dangerous situations don't know things they don't need to know, that information can't leak or be used in ways that increase danger.  Taken as a starting point, it leads to a safer environment.

As Craig Burton pointed out many years ago, one key defining aspect of the Internet is that everything is equidistant from everything else. 

That means we can get easily to the most obscure possible resources, which makes the Internet fantastic.  But it also means unknown “enemies” are as “close” to us as our “friends” – just a packet away.  If something is just a packet away, you can't see it coming, or prepare for it.  This aspect of digital “physics” is one of the main reasons the Internet can be a dangerous place.

That danger can be addressed by adopting a need-to-know approach to the Internet.  As little personal information as possible should be released, and to the smallest possible number of parties.  Architecturally, our infrastructure should lead naturally to this outcome. Continue reading Microsoft to adopt Stefan Brands’ Technology

Linkage with CardSpace in Auditing Mode

As we said here, systems like SAML and OpenID work without any changes to the browser or client – which is good.  But they depend on the relying party and identity provider to completely control the movement of information, and this turns out to be bad. Why? Well, for one thing, if the user lands at an evil site it can take complete control of the client (let's call this “extreme phishing”) and trick the user into a lot of evil.

Let’s review why this is the case.  Redirection protocols have two legs.  In the first, the relying party sends the user’s browser to the identity provider with a request.  Then the identity provider sends the browser back to the relying party with a response.   Either one can convince the user it's doing one thing while actually doing the opposite.

It’s clear that with this protocol, the user’s system is “passive”. Services are active parties while the browser does what it is told.  Moreover, the services know the contents of the transaction as well as the identities and locations of the other service involved.  This means some classes of linkage are intrinsic to the protocol, even without considering the contents of the identity payload.

What changes with CardSpace?

CardSpace is based on a different protocol pattern in which the user’s system is active too.  Continue reading Linkage with CardSpace in Auditing Mode

Control, not nagging

In a piece called Pleading down the Charges, Jeff Bohren of talkBMC  refers to the discussion I've had with Conor about invisible redirection as ‘inflammatory’, and adds: 

“In subsequent exchanges Kim and Conor plead the charges down from a felony to a misdemeanor. Kim allows that the redirection is OK so long as the IdP is completely trusted, but he is concerned about the case where the IdP is not trustworthy…

It's probably true that my “hand in wallet” metaphor was a bit stark.  But how can I put this?  I'm doing a threat analysis.  Saying everything is OK because people are trustworthy really doesn't get us very far.  Even a trustworthy IdP can be attacked;  threats remain real even in the light of mitigations. 

When we put on our security hats, and look at the security of a system, we try as hard as we can to explore every possible thing that can go wrong, and develop a complete profile of the attack vectors.  No one says, “Hey, don't talk about that attack, because we've done this or that to prevent it.”  Instead, we list the attack, we list what we do to mitigate it, and we understand the vulnerability.  We need to do the same thing around the privacy attack vectors.  It is revealing that this doesn't seem to be our instinct at this point in time, and reminds me of the days, before the widespread vulnerability of computer systems became apparent, when people who brought up potential security vulnerabilities were sent to stand in the corner.

Jeff continues:

What is missing from this discussion is the point that “automatic redirection” is not mandated by SAML. Redirection, yes, but automatic redirection is not required. The SP could very well have presented at page to the user that says:

“Your browser is about to be redirected for the purposes of establishing your identity. If you consent to this redirection, press Continue. If you do not consent, press Cancel….

Correct.  This could be done.  But information can also be made to fly around with zero visibility to the user.  And that represents a risk.

Jeff concludes:

Nobody does this kind of warning because the average user doesn’t want to be bothered and isn’t concerned with it. Not as concerned as, for instance, having a stranger reach into their pocket.

Actually, thanks to “invisible system design”, the “average user” has no idea about how her personal information is being sent around, or that with redirection protocols, her own browser is the covert channel for sharing her identity information between sites.  This might be all right inside an enterprise, when there is an implicit understanding that the enterprise shares all kinds of personal information.  It might even be OK in a portal, where I go to a financial institution and expect it to share my information with its various departments and subsidiaries.  But in the age of identity theft, I'm not so sure she would not be concerned with the invisible exchange of identity information between contextually unrelated sites.  I think she would probably feel like a stranger were reaching into her wallet. 

To be clear, my initial thinking about the “hand in wallet” came not from SAML, but from X.509, where the certificates described in Beyond maximal disclosure tokens are routinely and automatically released to any site that asks for them without any user approval.  SAML can be better in this regard, since the IP is able to judge the identity of the RP before releasing anything to it.  In this sense, not just any hand can reach into your wallet – just a hand approved by the “card issuer”…  This is better for sure.

Do we need to nag users as Jeff suggests might be the alternative? No.  Give the user a smart client, as is the case with CardSpace or Higgins, and whole new user experiences are possible that are “post nagging”.  The invisibility threat is substantially reduced.

In my next post in this series I'm going to start looking at CardSpace and linkability.