7 Feb 2008 ~ 6:04pmLeonardo
I remember signing up for Gmail when it was new, beta form seemingly forever to give people the feeling it was something special. Special my a$$!
I hope Open ID doesn't turn out to be a big so-what. I catch the import of Open ID's potential. Hope that potential translates well into implementation.
What about security? What are the implications.
7 Feb 2008 ~ 6:04pmj
ok what's the difference between openID and just using the same user name and password for every account. openID sounds like a dumb FAD
7 Feb 2008 ~ 6:19pmSnarkasm
BAM, Snarkasm pilfered. I think I'll change my Steam name to that. Snarky sarcasm. Win.
I, too, am wondering what's the point, though. It'd be more useful if this was something you could, say, put on a USB key with encryption that automatically logged you into the sites you visited. I'm just not sure I understand the point.
7 Feb 2008 ~ 8:41pmLinc
It's not a matter of "nabbing" a particular name. It's the full URL that identifies you. For instance, if you have AIM/AOL, you already have an OpenID at openid.aol.com/screenname
I know there is an AOL "Keebler" out there somewhere, but that didn't prevent me from getting "Keebler" at myopenid. The key to this is to identify that it is YOU, not to claim particular screennames.
The difference between this and using the same username/password everywhere is A) You don't worry if your username is taken, and B) You can change your password for everything at once.
Or your master key (universal password) can get taken from you....all at once?
But on the other hand, you only need actually log in to your "provider" site. So, you're not actually "logging in" all over the place, simply providing the link to the site where you ARE logged in. A third party is verifying your identity, rather than re-identifying at every site you visit.
It's actually exponentially shrinking your "attack surface" because you aren't typing in usernames and passwords all over the web.