Tillbaka till svenska Fidonet
English   Information   Debug  
OS2BBS   0/787
OS2DOSBBS   0/580
OS2HW   0/42
OS2INET   0/37
OS2LAN   0/134
OS2PROG   0/36
OS2REXX   0/113
OS2USER-L   207
OS2   0/4779
OSDEBATE   0/18996
PASCAL   0/490
PERL   0/457
PHP   0/45
POINTS   0/405
POLITICS   0/29554
POL_INC   0/14731
PSION   103
R20_ADMIN   1117
R20_AMATORRADIO   0/2
R20_BEST_OF_FIDONET   13
R20_CHAT   0/893
R20_DEPP   0/3
R20_DEV   399
R20_ECHO2   1379
R20_ECHOPRES   0/35
R20_ESTAT   0/719
R20_FIDONETPROG...
...RAM.MYPOINT
  0/2
R20_FIDONETPROGRAM   0/22
R20_FIDONET   0/248
R20_FILEFIND   0/24
R20_FILEFOUND   0/22
R20_HIFI   0/3
R20_INFO2   2632
R20_INTERNET   0/12940
R20_INTRESSE   0/60
R20_INTR_KOM   0/99
R20_KANDIDAT.CHAT   42
R20_KANDIDAT   28
R20_KOM_DEV   112
R20_KONTROLL   0/13030
R20_KORSET   0/18
R20_LOKALTRAFIK   0/24
R20_MODERATOR   0/1852
R20_NC   76
R20_NET200   245
R20_NETWORK.OTH...
...ERNETS
  0/13
R20_OPERATIVSYS...
...TEM.LINUX
  0/44
R20_PROGRAMVAROR   0/1
R20_REC2NEC   534
R20_SFOSM   0/340
R20_SF   0/108
R20_SPRAK.ENGLISH   0/1
R20_SQUISH   107
R20_TEST   2
R20_WORST_OF_FIDONET   12
RAR   0/9
RA_MULTI   106
RA_UTIL   0/162
REGCON.EUR   0/2055
REGCON   0/13
SCIENCE   0/1206
SF   0/239
SHAREWARE_SUPPORT   0/5146
SHAREWRE   0/14
SIMPSONS   0/169
STATS_OLD1   0/2539.065
STATS_OLD2   0/2530
STATS_OLD3   0/2395.095
STATS_OLD4   0/1692.25
SURVIVOR   0/495
SYSOPS_CORNER   0/3
SYSOP   0/84
TAGLINES   0/112
TEAMOS2   0/4530
TECH   0/2617
TEST.444   0/105
TRAPDOOR   0/19
TREK   0/755
TUB   0/290
UFO   0/40
UNIX   0/1316
USA_EURLINK   0/102
USR_MODEMS   0/1
VATICAN   0/2740
VIETNAM_VETS   0/14
VIRUS   0/378
VIRUS_INFO   0/201
VISUAL_BASIC   0/473
WHITEHOUSE   0/5187
WIN2000   0/101
WIN32   0/30
WIN95   0/4275
WIN95_OLD1   0/70272
WINDOWS   0/1517
WWB_SYSOP   0/419
WWB_TECH   0/810
ZCC-PUBLIC   0/1
ZEC   4

 
4DOS   0/134
ABORTION   0/7
ALASKA_CHAT   0/506
ALLFIX_FILE   0/1313
ALLFIX_FILE_OLD1   0/7997
ALT_DOS   0/152
AMATEUR_RADIO   0/1039
AMIGASALE   0/14
AMIGA   0/331
AMIGA_INT   0/1
AMIGA_PROG   0/20
AMIGA_SYSOP   0/26
ANIME   0/15
ARGUS   0/924
ASCII_ART   0/340
ASIAN_LINK   0/651
ASTRONOMY   0/417
AUDIO   0/92
AUTOMOBILE_RACING   0/105
BABYLON5   0/17862
BAG   135
BATPOWER   0/361
BBBS.ENGLISH   0/382
BBSLAW   0/109
BBS_ADS   0/5290
BBS_INTERNET   0/507
BIBLE   0/3563
BINKD   0/1119
BINKLEY   0/215
BLUEWAVE   0/2173
CABLE_MODEMS   0/25
CBM   0/46
CDRECORD   0/66
CDROM   0/20
CLASSIC_COMPUTER   0/378
COMICS   0/15
CONSPRCY   0/899
COOKING   27611
COOKING_OLD1   0/24719
COOKING_OLD2   0/40862
COOKING_OLD3   0/37489
COOKING_OLD4   0/35496
COOKING_OLD5   9370
C_ECHO   0/189
C_PLUSPLUS   0/31
DIRTY_DOZEN   0/201
DOORGAMES   0/1974
DOS_INTERNET   0/196
duplikat   5999
ECHOLIST   0/18295
EC_SUPPORT   0/318
ELECTRONICS   0/359
ELEKTRONIK.GER   1534
ENET.LINGUISTIC   0/13
ENET.POLITICS   0/4
ENET.SOFT   0/11701
ENET.SYSOP   33774
ENET.TALKS   0/32
ENGLISH_TUTOR   0/2000
EVOLUTION   0/1335
FDECHO   0/217
FDN_ANNOUNCE   0/7068
FIDONEWS   23439
FIDONEWS_OLD1   0/49742
FIDONEWS_OLD2   0/35949
FIDONEWS_OLD3   0/30874
FIDONEWS_OLD4   0/37224
FIDO_SYSOP   12841
FIDO_UTIL   0/180
FILEFIND   0/209
FILEGATE   0/212
FILM   0/18
FNEWS_PUBLISH   4155
FN_SYSOP   41520
FN_SYSOP_OLD1   71952
FTP_FIDO   0/2
FTSC_PUBLIC   0/13561
FUNNY   0/4886
GENEALOGY.EUR   0/71
GET_INFO   105
GOLDED   0/408
HAM   0/16041
HOLYSMOKE   0/6791
HOT_SITES   0/1
HTMLEDIT   0/71
HUB203   466
HUB_100   264
HUB_400   39
HUMOR   0/29
IC   0/2851
INTERNET   0/424
INTERUSER   0/3
IP_CONNECT   719
JAMNNTPD   0/233
JAMTLAND   0/47
KATTY_KORNER   0/41
LAN   0/16
LINUX-USER   0/19
LINUXHELP   0/1155
LINUX   0/22002
LINUX_BBS   0/957
mail   18.68
mail_fore_ok   249
MENSA   0/341
MODERATOR   0/102
MONTE   0/992
MOSCOW_OKLAHOMA   0/1245
MUFFIN   0/783
MUSIC   0/321
N203_STAT   894
N203_SYSCHAT   313
NET203   321
NET204   69
NET_DEV   0/10
NORD.ADMIN   0/101
NORD.CHAT   0/2572
NORD.FIDONET   189
NORD.HARDWARE   0/28
NORD.KULTUR   0/114
NORD.PROG   0/32
NORD.SOFTWARE   0/88
NORD.TEKNIK   0/58
NORD   0/453
OCCULT_CHAT   0/93
Möte OSDEBATE, 18996 texter
 lista första sista föregående nästa
Text 2061, 476 rader
Skriven 2005-01-18 19:52:02 av Geo (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 2040 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Usage history
=========================
From: "Geo" <georger@nls.net>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C4FD97.2DA00F90
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You know, that's an interesting point. With single signon the sites = don't
have your password so what's more secure, one single login site or = 20
different web sites where each stores your password. Seems to me the = single
signon would be more secure. (this assumes you use the same = password for your
bank and your credit card company site which both = Ellen and I don't)

OTOH, if you don't care about the sites such as the NYT where you only = have a
login so they can track your ass, who cares if it's secure or = not? Personally
I take great satisfaction in sharing the barkto login = for sites like NYT so
that what they end up tracking is a bunch of users = which then messes up their
per user statistics. In a case like that a = single signon feature would be
counter productive.

Geo.
  "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:41ecadcb@w3.nls.net...
     I believe what you describe is very typical except that most folks =
do not use strong passwords so special characters are not an issue.  = This
creates a far greater vulnerability than single sign-on because not = only does
a single password work at many sites, each and every one of = these many sites
knows your password and you are vulnerable not just to = someone stealing your
password from you by some means but also your = password being stolen from any
one of the sites with which you have an = account.  With single sign-on, the
individual sites to not have your = password.

  Rich

    "John Oellrich" <john@oellrich.us> wrote in message =
news:41ec8b51@w3.nls.net...
    Ellen,

    Can you keep all these usernames and passwords combos memorized? I =
know I couldn't. And a lot of sites I buy from require the username to = be my
e-mail address, so there goes the username option. I just choose = to go with
essentially a single very strong password (have to do some = variations because
many sites will not allow special characters in = passwords).

    --=20
    john

    john@oellrich.us
      "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in =
message news:18jlu09b16c03vh74i1nv0aa30fsdt9p5i@4ax.com...
      The reason I brought up the optional wallet service was that a =
couple of
      messages upthread the discussion was about credit card numbers.

      To answer your question, yes, I have a unique username and =
password for
      any site where I care about the privacy and security of my =
information.
      For example I have different usernames and passwords for Schwab,
      e*Trade, the outfit that manages my company's 401(k) plan, and the
      credit card issuer whose bills I pay online.   At work my username =
is
      the same for logon and email because with Novell it has to be, but =
the
      passwords are different, and both the username and password for =
the pcAW
      host object on my desktop are different from the other two.

      On the other hand, I don't care if my password for the NYTimes is =
the
      same as my password to the LATimes.   But even that isn't the same =
as
      single sign-in because there isn't a common manager that looks at =
what I
      read in both places, which with single sign-in would be at least
      theoretically possible.

      On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:08:17 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
      <41e9f6c1@w3.nls.net>:

      >   There was an optional wallet service and you are right, this =
additional optional service could not be anonymous.  You aren't = comparing
apples to apples if you include the people that made a choice = to use this. 
Folks that wanted to be anonymous would not choose this.
      >
      >   Really, this argument is silly.  I don't know you but too many =
people I know use the same password on the many sites that require them = to
register, whether they lie or not.  Their intent is to have something = that
acts like single sign-in.   Now I'm sure the people arguing against =
single sign-in here are not hypocrits and all use distinct unique = usernames,
email addresses, passwords, etc for each and every account = they have.  Don't
you?
      >
      >Rich
      >
      >  "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in =
message news:ldqju0pdbclq8l54fbhi21220l86uibp28@4ax.com...
      >  Well, if you only use Passport as a signin, yes.  But there was =
a piece
      >  to it where it would know your credit card information so when =
you used
      >  it to log on to a site where you wanted to buy stuff you =
wouldn't have
      >  to enter the credit card information.   It would be impossible =
to use
      >  that part and be anonymous.
      >
      >  On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:09:44 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
      >  <41e30b2c@w3.nls.net>:
      >
      >  >   I disagree.  Passport is no less anonymous than other =
signin mechanisms.  You are in control of the information you provide to =
create your signin.  If you want to lie then lie.
      >  >
      >  >Rich
      >  >
      >  >  "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote =
in message news:c5h4u0p76hl80msc3pis0v1puf9k7erkpn@4ax.com...
      >  >  I think he wasn't addressing services claiming they don't =
disclose...
      >  >  his message gave examples of people trying to be =
anonymous... but
      >  >  someone trying to be anonymous wouldn't use Passport (unless =
they were
      >  >  REALLY stupid) so I'm not quite following the logic either.
      >  >
      >  >  On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:04:25 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in =
message
      >  >  <41e1720a@w3.nls.net>:
      >  >
      >  >  >   The fragment you chose to quote is interesting.  How =
many services claim that they do not disclose info as required by law?
      >  >  >
      >  >  >   The rest is garbage.
      >  >  >
      >  >  >Rich
      >  >  >
      >  >  >  "Mike N." <mike@u-spam-u-die.net> wrote in message =
news:e8b2u0hias1bdkdgbe34mf26snbcna0ov4@4ax.com...
      >  >  >  On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:48:12 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote:
      >  >  >
      >  >  >  > If you mean to question what Passport is to Microsoft =
you should use Microsoft's claims about the service
      >  >  >
      >  >  >  =
http://www.passport.net/Consumer/PrivacyPolicy.asp?lc=3D1033
      >  >  >
      >  >  >  "NET Passport may disclose personal information if =
required to do so by law
      >  >  >  or in the good-faith belief that such action is necessary =
to: (a) conform
      >  >  >  to legal requirements or comply with legal process served =
on Microsoft;"
      >  >  >
      >  >  >     This confirms the information I already had.  A single =
signon is for
      >  >  >  convenience, not security.  Sure your ISP can see what =
you're doing.  They
      >  >  >  can initiate a wiretap when served by a subpoena.  =
However there are many
      >  >  >  people for which this won't suffice -
      >  >  >     o terrorists who jump from Cafe to Cafe.
      >  >  >    o  commuters who use wireless internet services from =
Starbucks, at work,
      >  >  >  airports, etc.
      >  >  >    o Those who attempt to escape identity by wardriving =
from open wireless
      >  >  >  to open wireless LAN.
      >  >  >      Investigators would need to obtain subpoenas from =
thousands of ISPs to
      >  >  >  cover all activities of a person.   Alternatively, =
assuming that .NET is in
      >  >  >  widespread use, they would just need to subpoena =
Microsoft to get a
      >  >  >  complete profile of sites where a signon was used, and =
the IP
      >  >  >  address/date/time they were accessed from.
      >  >  >
      >  >  >     It still appears that if anyone gets your passport  =
login, they can
      >  >  >  assume your signon, just as if they are you.

------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C4FD97.2DA00F90
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You know, that's an interesting point. =
With single=20
signon the sites don't have your password so what's more secure, one =
single=20
login site or 20 different web sites where each stores your password. = Seems
to=20
me the single signon would be more secure. (this assumes you use the = same=20
password for your bank and your credit card company site which both = Ellen and
I=20
don't)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OTOH, if you don't care about the sites =
such as the=20
NYT where you only have a login so they can track your ass, who cares if =
it's=20
secure or not? Personally I take great satisfaction in sharing the = barkto
login=20
for sites like NYT so that what they end up tracking is a bunch of users =
which=20
then messes up their per user statistics. In a case like that a single =
signon=20
feature would be counter productive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV>"Rich" &lt;@&gt; wrote in message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:41ecadcb@w3.nls.net">news:41ecadcb@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; I believe what you =
describe is very=20
  typical except that most folks do not use strong passwords so special=20
  characters are not an issue.&nbsp; This creates a far greater =
vulnerability=20
  than single sign-on because not only does a single password work at =
many=20
  sites, each and every one of these many sites knows your password and =
you are=20
  vulnerable not just to someone stealing your password from you by some =
means=20
  but also your password being stolen from any one of the sites with =
which you=20
  have an account.&nbsp; With single sign-on, the individual sites to =
not have=20
  your password.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
  style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV>"John Oellrich" &lt;<A=20
    href=3D"mailto:john@oellrich.us">john@oellrich.us</A>&gt; wrote in =
message <A=20
    =
href=3D"news:41ec8b51@w3.nls.net">news:41ec8b51@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
    <DIV>Ellen,</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Can you keep all these usernames and passwords combos =
memorized? I know=20
    I couldn't. And a lot of sites I buy from require the username to be =
my=20
    e-mail address, so there goes the username option. I just choose to =
go with=20
    essentially a single very strong password (have to do some =
variations=20
    because many sites will not allow special characters in =
passwords).</DIV>
    <DIV><BR>-- <BR>john</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><A href=3D"mailto:john@oellrich.us">john@oellrich.us</A></DIV>
    <BLOCKQUOTE=20
    style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
      <DIV>"Ellen K." &lt;<A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>&gt;=20
      wrote in message <A=20
      =
href=3D"news:18jlu09b16c03vh74i1nv0aa30fsdt9p5i@4ax.com">news:18jlu09b16c=
03vh74i1nv0aa30fsdt9p5i@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>The=20
      reason I brought up the optional wallet service was that a couple=20
      of<BR>messages upthread the discussion was about credit card=20
      numbers.<BR><BR>To answer your question, yes, I have a unique =
username and=20
      password for<BR>any site where I care about the privacy and =
security of my=20
      information.<BR>For example I have different usernames and =
passwords for=20
      Schwab,<BR>e*Trade, the outfit that manages my company's 401(k) =
plan, and=20
      the<BR>credit card issuer whose bills I pay online.&nbsp;&nbsp; At =
work my=20
      username is<BR>the same for logon and email because with Novell it =
has to=20
      be, but the<BR>passwords are different, and both the username and =
password=20
      for the pcAW<BR>host object on my desktop are different from the =
other=20
      two.<BR><BR>On the other hand, I don't care if my password for the =
NYTimes=20
      is the<BR>same as my password to the LATimes.&nbsp;&nbsp; But even =
that=20
      isn't the same as<BR>single sign-in because there isn't a common =
manager=20
      that looks at what I<BR>read in both places, which with single =
sign-in=20
      would be at least<BR>theoretically possible.<BR><BR>On Sat, 15 Jan =
2005=20
      21:08:17 -0800, "Rich" &lt;@&gt; wrote in message<BR>&lt;<A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:41e9f6c1@w3.nls.net">41e9f6c1@w3.nls.net</A>&gt;:<BR><BR>&=
gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
      There was an optional wallet service and you are right, this =
additional=20
      optional service could not be anonymous.&nbsp; You aren't =
comparing apples=20
      to apples if you include the people that made a choice to use =
this.&nbsp;=20
      Folks that wanted to be anonymous would not choose=20
      this.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; Really, this argument is =
silly.&nbsp; I=20
      don't know you but too many people I know use the same password on =
the=20
      many sites that require them to register, whether they lie or =
not.&nbsp;=20
      Their intent is to have something that acts like single=20
      sign-in.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now I'm sure the people arguing against =
single=20
      sign-in here are not hypocrits and all use distinct unique =
usernames,=20
      email addresses, passwords, etc for each and every account they=20
      have.&nbsp; Don't you?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Rich<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; =
"Ellen=20
      K." &lt;<A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>&gt;=20
      wrote in message <A=20
      =
href=3D"news:ldqju0pdbclq8l54fbhi21220l86uibp28@4ax.com">news:ldqju0pdbcl=
q8l54fbhi21220l86uibp28@4ax.com</A>...<BR>&gt;&nbsp;=20
      Well, if you only use Passport as a signin, yes.&nbsp; But there =
was a=20
      piece<BR>&gt;&nbsp; to it where it would know your credit card =
information=20
      so when you used<BR>&gt;&nbsp; it to log on to a site where you =
wanted to=20
      buy stuff you wouldn't have<BR>&gt;&nbsp; to enter the credit card =

      information.&nbsp;&nbsp; It would be impossible to =
use<BR>&gt;&nbsp; that=20
      part and be anonymous.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 =
15:09:44=20
      -0800, "Rich" &lt;@&gt; wrote in message<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &lt;<A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:41e30b2c@w3.nls.net">41e30b2c@w3.nls.net</A>&gt;:<BR>&gt;<=
BR>&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; Passport is no less anonymous =
than=20
      other signin mechanisms.&nbsp; You are in control of the =
information you=20
      provide to create your signin.&nbsp; If you want to lie then=20
      lie.<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;Rich<BR>&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; "Ellen K." &lt;<A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>&gt;=20
      wrote in message <A=20
      =
href=3D"news:c5h4u0p76hl80msc3pis0v1puf9k7erkpn@4ax.com">news:c5h4u0p76hl=
80msc3pis0v1puf9k7erkpn@4ax.com</A>...<BR>&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp; I think he wasn't addressing services claiming they =
don't=20
      disclose...<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; his message gave examples of =
people=20
      trying to be anonymous... but<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; someone =
trying to=20
      be anonymous wouldn't use Passport (unless they were<BR>&gt;&nbsp; =

      &gt;&nbsp; REALLY stupid) so I'm not quite following the logic=20
      either.<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; On Sun, 9 Jan =
2005=20
      10:04:25 -0800, "Rich" &lt;@&gt; wrote in message<BR>&gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &lt;<A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:41e1720a@w3.nls.net">41e1720a@w3.nls.net</A>&gt;:<BR>&gt;&=
nbsp;=20
      &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; The fragment you =
chose to=20
      quote is interesting.&nbsp; How many services claim that they do =
not=20
      disclose info as required by law?<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; The rest is=20
      garbage.<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;Rich<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;=20
      "Mike N." &lt;<A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:mike@u-spam-u-die.net">mike@u-spam-u-die.net</A>&gt; = wrote
in=20
      message <A=20
      =
href=3D"news:e8b2u0hias1bdkdgbe34mf26snbcna0ov4@4ax.com">news:e8b2u0hias1=
bdkdgbe34mf26snbcna0ov4@4ax.com</A>...<BR>&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:48:12 -0800, "Rich" =
&lt;@&gt;=20
      wrote:<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt; If you mean to question what Passport is to Microsoft you =
should use=20
      Microsoft's claims about the service<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; <A=20
      =
href=3D"http://www.passport.net/Consumer/PrivacyPolicy.asp?lc=3D1033">htt=
p://www.passport.net/Consumer/PrivacyPolicy.asp?lc=3D1033</A><BR>&gt;&nbs=
p;=20
      &gt;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; "NET Passport =
may=20
      disclose personal information if required to do so by =
law<BR>&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; or in the good-faith belief that such action =
is=20
      necessary to: (a) conform<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; to =
legal=20
      requirements or comply with legal process served on=20
      Microsoft;"<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; =

      &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This confirms the information I =
already=20
      had.&nbsp; A single signon is for<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;=20
      convenience, not security.&nbsp; Sure your ISP can see what you're =

      doing.&nbsp; They<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; can initiate =
a=20
      wiretap when served by a subpoena.&nbsp; However there are=20
      many<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; people for which this =
won't=20
      suffice -<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o=20
      terrorists who jump from Cafe to Cafe.<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o&nbsp; commuters who use wireless internet =

      services from Starbucks, at work,<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;=20
      airports, etc.<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o =
Those who=20
      attempt to escape identity by wardriving from open =
wireless<BR>&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; to open wireless LAN.<BR>&gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Investigators would need to =
obtain=20
      subpoenas from thousands of ISPs to<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;=20
      cover all activities of a person.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alternatively, =
assuming that=20
      .NET is in<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; widespread use, =
they would=20
      just need to subpoena Microsoft to get a<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp; complete profile of sites where a signon was used, and =
the=20
      IP<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; address/date/time they were =

      accessed from.<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;=20
      &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It still appears that if anyone gets =
your=20
      passport&nbsp; login, they can<BR>&gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; =
assume=20
      your signon, just as if they are=20
you.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C4FD97.2DA00F90--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)