eCitizens
Sharing a bit of identity
4That was easy. First, I claimed it, then checked it, then mapped it and then checked it again, and now I guess I can claim my identity is gotze.eu. My public persona is currently at gotze.myopenid.com. I’m playing with my own IdP, but that’s not ready yet.
OpenID is cool. To show you just how cool it is, try this: Using your own OpenID, try making a comment to this entry. You should be able to identify yourself with OpenID on this blog. Thanks to this great plugin.
I wonder if anyone can recommend Perl libraries for OpenID? I notice there’s also a MT-plugin which I guess use Perl-libraries. Got to try that out. But in general, if anyone could explain what kind of work will be needed to OpenID-enable a web application, please holler!
An e-democrazy fellow
1My old friend Steven Clift made a short stop here in Copenhagen this week, and we had a good talk about the status of e-democracy. I had arranged for Steve to make an interview on DR (national radio) – the interview was on the air twice this weekend, and is now online at Harddisken: Net-demokrati der rykker.
Steve was recently inducted as an Ashoka Fellow. This will enable him to intensify his important work with local online Issues Forums through an expanded E-Democracy.Org.
Digital Identity Management – Challenges and Benefits
4Amir Hadziahmetovic has published his MSc in IT thesis, which he made under my supervision. It is in English and is called Digital Identity Management – Challenges and Benefits (Download PDF). Besides giving a nice introduction to and analysis of Identity Management, Amir makes some interesting observations about the identity management situation in Denmark. I recommend everyone to read this good thesis.
I’ve extracted a few central paragraphs introducing the project:
The main research problem is how to find the optimal model that will solve Digital Identity (DI) management and the data interchange for electronic business in new network economy. The problem lies in unknown path of how to make choices for interoperable DI, and how to find the optimal strategy to implement chosen model. The research will commence with exploring the area of general Digital Identity Management, continue with analyzing platform for interoperable management and exchange of DIs, including implementation challenges, and end with listing the benefits of having such a platform implemented.
Imagine the sewerage management of a bigger city where each building block has a container for waste waters instead of a city-wide sewerage system. Without drain-pipes connecting the containers, every now and then a container would fill up, and for emptying a pump-trucks would be needed. They would pump out the content from a container, and spill it out at some depot outside the town. This would be very complex system of containers and trucks, difficult to control and manage. Some of the containers would certainly get overfilled, causing flooding and bad smell. With the growth of the city, the system would get even more unreliable. Therefore the majority of today’s cities have outspread sewerage system, which connects the depots, automating the spill of waste waters.
The similar problem modern business has with today’s DI management: Identity data in containers, filling up quickly; the system unable to exchange data with other systems; difficult to maintain and automate the spill of data. To enable development of electronic business, more reliable system for DI management is required.
Business trends today push organizations toward strengthening of cooperation and linking of business processes between them. Many companies and governments are tending to expand their activities by integrating online services and systems, and letting external users access internal data. Individual users want comfortable Web experience, and minimal effort in getting tailor-made products and services. Inability of today’s IT systems to match these trends is choking present development of business. Strengthening of cooperation and linking of business processes is putting pressure on IT systems and belonging infrastructure, requiring that Digital Identity data is created in unified fashion, and safely exchanged between organizations.
Digital Identity Management (IM) is a fundamental part of integrated company systems and online services. It defines who has access to what in some cases, and identifies customers and users of the services in other cases. IM architecture of today has to evolve from predominantly silo to common, interoperable architecture, based on open standards. This kind of architecture is a fundament for Federated IM, where identities are safely exchanged.
This project will try to look at Digital Identity Management, technology and architecture in relation to business goals and strategies. The main concepts of Digital Identity Management will be addressed i.a. concepts like Federated Identity, Single Sign-On (SSO), and Open Standards. The report will present a study of business and technical implications of Federating Identity, where Identity management is the central issue.
An analysis of the practical as well as architectural aspects of Federated Identity will be covered. An analysis of open standards for interoperability will be covered, especially those advised by Danish National IT and Telecom Agency and their Reference Model for Identity. The report will focus on standards from the Model such as Role-Based Access Control (RBAC), Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML), Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and Public certificates for electronic services – OCES Digital Signature, but also will discuss alternatives. Finally privacy issues will be considered.
The fundamental objective of any enterprise IT system must be full support to business flexibility and agility in ever-changing business environment. The ultimate goal of this project is to perceive the challenges of the IM evolution path, and to show how Identity Management supports connection between the systems and the processes, providing users with better web experience.
Method: The project will list general theoretical issues, comparing different views on these issues, and presenting own reasoning.
The obstacles in relation to acceptance of Reference Model for Identity will be analyzed. The analysis will be based on empirical research including feedback from involved organizations, interviews with individuals from selected organizations, conferences, and forums.
Again: Download Amir’s thesis (PDF).
Still e-ready
0The 2005 e-readiness rankings (press release) from The IBM Institute for Business Value and The Economist Intelligence Unit has been published. Using a secret set of metrics, 65 countries are assessed on their ability to promote and support digital business and ICT services.
Denmark is again ranked number one in this ‘measure of the complete e-picture’, with an overall score of 8.74 (of 10) based on nearly 100 criteria in various areas. These areas are (with Denmark’s scores):
- Connectivity (8.20)
- Business enviroment (8.58)
- Consumer and business adoption (8.85)
- Legal and policy environment (8.65)
- Social and cultural environment (9.60)
- Supporting e-services (9.25)
Last year, Denmark scored an overall of 8.28. The improvement in scores is general among the surveyed countries. If we assume a continued growth, Denmark has to improve at several fronts to stay in front of the pack. A linear projection says we have to score an overall of 9.25 next year. Hence, we need to do something serious about connectivity and the business, consumer and policy environments. Our social and cultural environment is our strenght, and our supporting e-services are also good (here we just have to challenge the US with their perfect 10 there).
The metrics used in the survey deserves a few words. The weights is one thing; for example, I don’t understand why the supporting e-services only weighs 5%. Also, some of the criteria are questionable; for example, the penetration of SSL encrypted servers as a measure of security, which might be a measurable criteria, but does not come across as a reliable measure of anything (but the penetration of SSL). Another point: why is it possible to score a perfect 10? Can’t the US improve on the supporting e-services now??
