LJ munging OpenID comments?
work at zefiro.de
Wed Sep 21 17:06:02 PDT 2005
> OpenID != anonymous. That _is_ the point of openID. Nobody's saying that
> an OpenID user is anonymous.
This is what I wanted to repeat. Please notice that I quoted the relevant part before I complained about it:
From: "Evan Martin" <martine at danga.com> at Tue, September 20, 2005 5:55 am
>OpenID users really are basically the same as anonymous users. All it
>takes is one public OpenID server that'll auth anyone (and I believe
>one already exists) and it's back to spamland.
(sidenote: why so complicated? the spammer could operate their own server)
From: "Kurt Raschke" <kurt at raschke.net> at Tue, September 20, 2005 10:21 pm
>All right, all right. So if OpenID is the "not anonymous", then
>where's the "not spam" part? Do we build a web-of-trust system on
>top of OpenID, or what?
I don't understand where the problem is. It's stated clearly in the spec, and even quoted by Evan Martin: "This is not a trust
system. Trust requires identity first."
So yes, we could build this system ontop. If we (i.e. the individual consumers) want to.
Given that, I'm completely ok with consumers treating OpenID-users as they wish - even the same as anonymous, if it's necessary
(but knowing that they are _not_). Though I'd like to see services with whitelists for certain big OpenID-Servers (I think the
server should matter here, not the OpenID itself, as the server is the one who makes the verification), and I'd like to see
OpenID users being treated just like any other users - potentially after solving a captcha and accepting the TOS.
More information about the yadis