[KI-LC] Telecon Reminder - Wed, Sept 23 at 15:00 UTC
J. Trent Adams
adams at isoc.org
Wed Sep 23 07:07:52 PDT 2009
Are these areas of exploration you need to see addressed in the written
request for funding before you can support it?
If so, can you suggest a concrete statement that could be added to the
Bob Pinheiro wrote:
> From the viewpoint of the Consumer Identity WG, I would like to see
> this work also explore what kinds of incentives would be necessary in
> order for consumers to adopt stronger security measures (ie, stronger
> authentication) for access to online financial accounts and other
> high-value online services, as well as for making online payments
> using credit card numbers and other payment services.
> As an example, how might consumers react to policy changes by online
> service providers designed to stimulate greater usage of more secure
> login procedures? Many financial service providers and payment
> services require only weak authentication (eg, passwords / challenge
> questions) for making online payments or accessing financial
> accounts. Use of credit card numbers for making online payments
> requires only knowledge of the cc number, security code, and
> expiration date. What if these service providers said something to
> consumers like: "Look, you can continue to access your financial or
> payment account using only a password or challenge questions if you
> wish. But be advised that if your information is compromised and
> unauthorized persons access your account, we may not be able to cover
> any losses you incur. In order to be fully protected, you must adopt
> one of these more secure methods for accessing your account."
> These other methods may involve OpenID or Information Cards coupled
> with two factor authentication, or other more secure login procedures
> than are currently in use.
> Insight into these issues would likely also benefit the ULX WG as well.
> Bob Pinheiro
> Chair, Consumer Identity WG
> kantara at bobpinheiro.com
> Iain Henderson wrote:
>> Trent, sorry but I now can't make the call today; so let me try and
>> address the remaining query over the proposed 2009 funding request
>> for scoping of a consumer market research project via e-mail.
>> The remaining query that i'm aware of is from Ken Salzberg, as per below.
>> /'In reading the proposal, there is one thing that stands out as a
>> potential issue for me./
>> /In the Exec Summary the following statement is made:
>> /"The ultimate aim is to produce a statistically valid body or
>> research available to
>> consortia partners that will enable product/ service design for those
>> wishing to deploy
>> and engage with user-centric/ user-driven identities."
>> /In the Kanatara benefit section it states:
>> /"This project seeks to build and enable genuine thought leadership
>> across technology,
>> business model, regulatory and user experience in the digital
>> identity realm."
>> The issue I have is that I question the use of Kantara funds to drive
>> development of member products and services, which does not seem
>> appropriate to me. This could certainly be a side benefit, but not
>> the direct purpose.
>> I agree that the thought leadership is a worthy goal, but is a bit
>> weak on its own.
>> What I would like to see is something that shows how this research
>> will help drive/market work being done in one or more WGs.'/
>> My perspective on that is as follows:
>> - the funding request only relates to $5k in seed corn investment to
>> kick start what will undoubtedly be a big and expensive research
>> study (it has to be to genuinely get at real consumer needs in a
>> statistically valid manner that can be modeled).
>> - the second and third phases require additional investment, expected
>> from organisations with large customer/ citizen bases who have an
>> incentive in better understanding customer needs (i.e. it helps them
>> build better products and services). They won't invest unless they
>> are getting something back that is relevant to them.
>> - combining the Kantara initiation and management of this study
>> enables both a body of knowledge to be built and made available for
>> the greater good, *and* also the development of better products and
>> services that are the only thing that will close the current gap.
>> Note i'd assume the terms of investment in stages 2 and 3 would be
>> that the investors get early access to the results, but the overall
>> body is published on an open basis.
>> Also, to be clear; this is not a proposal aimed at only UDVPI issues;
>> to date we have interest from the P3P, eGov and UMA groups. I don't
>> expect that interest to firm up until the scoping work more clearly
>> articulates the proposed research, but this is very definitely aimed
>> at being a Kantara wide study and not just for one work group.
>> Hope that helps.
J. Trent Adams
Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
e) adams at isoc.org
More information about the LC