For the past decade or so, online computer networks have enabled millions of users worldwide to establish what is known as “Digital Identities.” David Greenfield (2003), the International Technology Editor for CMP (a marketing solutions company focused on the technology industry) Media’s network Magazine specializing in covering the optical networking market, explores the definition of “Digital Identities.” In Digital Identity’s Hidden Maestro ,
“The most optimistic proponents of the Internet have argued that gender, race, and age become unimportant in online interaction” (Kollock and Smith). Kollock and Smith agree that “[o]nline interaction strips away many of the cues and signs that are part of face-to-face interaction; providing room to play with one’s identity. In the article Big Technology , Nick Montfort (1999), a computer scientist, scholar of new media, and author of interactive fiction, argues that databases and the Internet have “given rise to huge collaborations spanning numerous disciplines national boundaries.” Digital identities and virtual communities “make[s] it possible for large groups of people to work together without much hierarchy [and] can also facilitate cooperation across national and even language barriers” (Montfort). Rebecca E. Grinter and Leysia Palen (2002), the former a researcher and Associate Professor at the College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the second also a researcher and Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of Colorado, focuses on instant messaging with teenagers. In Instant Messaging in Teen Life , Grinter and Palen describe “Instant Messaging (IM)” (“AIM” and MSN for example) as a tool that “reinforce[s] the social ‘glue’ that ties people together” (Grinter and Palen:21-22). IM also allow users to “talk with friends outside the times that would be allowed […] by natural constraints […]” (“limited social time during school hours” for example) (24). In addition, IM has been seen to be “efficient” in “event planning”, “schoolwork collaboration,” and “multitasking” (25). In a constantly changing world, IM helps to “maintain […] long-distance relationships” which would normally be difficult to manage (28).
In a trio consisting of Toby Baier, a full time student at Hamburg University, Christian Zirpins, a research engineer and doctoral candidate in the Distributed Systems and Information Systems Group at Hamburg University, and Winfried Lamersdorf, Professor in the Department of Computer Science at
Current developments in this new technology are aimed at solving the problems of security, privacy, and “global user authentication” (Baier et al. 2003). In order to enhance communication and enable controlled exchange of sensitive data on the internet, there needs to be global standards in identifying users and a universally comprehensible format for data. In Digital Identity’s Hidden Maestro , David Greenfield (2003) points to some of such systems. For instance, the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) formed a Provisioning Services Technical Committee (PSTC) in 2001 to “define and develop an end-to-end, open, XML-based framework for exchanging users, resource, and service provisioning information.” This framework “aims to standardize portions of the agent technology needed to create, modify, activate, suspend, enable, and delete data between compliant systems.” Also, Liberty Alliance’s specification and Microsoft’s Passport are the “two leading digital identity initiatives out there today.” Hansen et al. (2004), a group consisting of computer scientists, researchers, and security and privacy executives concerning communication networks, investigates the problems that new programs will need to overcome in order to preserve privacy. In their article, Privacy-Enhancing Management Systems , Hansen et al. argues that in order to ensure privacy and security, there needs to be an “increased level of surveillance, biometric recognition and universal identifiers.” They propose the Privacy-Enhancing Identity Management System (PE-IMS) which will “enable people to assert their privacy rights in the online world” (Hansen et al.).
In the article Privacy and Prejudice: whose ID is it anyway?, Duncan Graham-Rowe “investigates what impact the widespread introduction of biometrics will have on society” (
Work Cited:
Baier, T., Zirpins, C., and Lamersdorf, W. "Digital Identity: How To Be Someone On The Net." IADIS Press. 2003: 815-820. e-Society. 19 March 2007.
Graham-Rowe, Duncan. “Privacy and prejudice: Whose ID is it anyway?” New Scientist. 2005;187:20-23. Academic Search Premier. 19 March 2007.
Greenfield, David. “Digital identity's hidden maestro.” Network Magazine. 2003;18:40. Academic Search Premier. 19 March 2007.
Grinter, R.E. & Palen, L. “Instant Messaging in Teen Life.” 2002;21-30. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New Orleans: Louisiana.
Hansen, M., Berlich, P., Camenisch, J., Clauß, S., Pfitzmann, A., Waidner, M. “Privacy-enhancing identity management.” Information Security Technical Report. 2004/0;9:35-44. Academic Search Premier. 19 March 2007.
Montfort, Nick. “Big technology.” Technology Review. 1999;102:99. Academic Search Premier. 19 March 2007.
Smith, M. & Kollock, P. “Communities in Cyberspace.” 1999. London: Routledge.
In “Instant Messaging in Teen Life”, Grinter and Palen (2002) describes “Instant Messaging (IM)” (“AIM” and MSN for example) as a tool that “reinforces the social ‘glue’ that ties people together”. Aside from the concerns of “unauthorized copying of IM text” and “sharing information about oneself” –“an essential part of IM conversation, and one for which teens have concerns about protecting”, IM allow users to “talk with friends outside the times that would be allowed... by natural constraints ...” (“limited social time during school hours” for example). Also, IM has been seen to be “efficient” in “event planning”, “schoolwork collaboration” , “multitasking”. In a constantly changing world, “IM...helps maintain... long-distance relationships” which would normally be difficult to manage.
The cost of Digital Identities
In “Digital Identity: How to be someone on the net,” Baier et al. (2003) focuses on the challenges and limitations that come with the use of the widely popular internet and the establishment of digital identities. Despite the growing number of “directory services” (“specific repositories for personal data”), Baier et al. questions: Is there a repository today that has demonstrated the ability to satisfy all the different areas of demand such as security, reliability, and maximize openness and efficiency?
Due to the “lack of homogenous representation of digital identities” in “human centric electronic interaction,” the images that users have of each other are ultimately “fuzzy.” This causes a great deal of “uncertainty” which affects “trust and social behaviour” between co-operation partners and results in “inefficient and error-prone” communication. This type of “identity representation” available is not enough to identify the users as “individual human beings.”
Baier et al. muses that despite internet’s “immense growth,” there has not been much “evolution of infrastructure to directly support application-level-communication.” In the example scenario given, a “chess enthusiast” named Elli would have to enter her personal information and set up different users for every time she joins a different service (for example, online chess game, online forum, and online books and software stores).
Presenting personal information is important in establishing a digital identity; however, many challenges come with it. One challenge is authentication: “the process of making sure that identification is valid.” Another problem is semantics: Identities should be “universally understood” to avoid confusion. “Security and privacy” are also crucial as identity theft and deception are “major threats.” “Fine granulated information disclosure” is aimed at solving this but it also presents another problem since it becomes a “very complicated task” to maintain. Also, “too much automation in privacy control” means the users are usually less and less “aware” of what others know about them.
Many companies (.NET Passport System by Microsoft, Liberty Alliance Program, X.500, Lightweight DAP, etc.) have tried to tackle these problems but have always failed in one area or another. In general, “collaboration systems” need a broader user base. Baier et al. wishes to target "global user authentication and open distributed directory services.” By doing this, communication and co-operation on the internet will be greatly enhanced and digital identities will be recognized as “personal characters.”
|