Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under openid...

A few years ago I tried to start a company called Anatomy Ads. We tried to create a social advertising network. This company failed as a business. You can read a lengthy post about what we did and what happened here.

But it didn't fail as a concept. Someone, somewhere, is going to invent a social ad platform that works. It's just a matter of time. What I wanted to address is everything that we did right, and why there is an even greater opporunity to do it again—and do it right.

When we started, there was a [now defunct] company called TipJoy which billed itself a "a social micropayments service." It was the closest analogue to what we were trying to create. TipJoy allowed you to leave a tip for someone else, usually a blogger or some other kind of creative person creating new media content. If you were a blogger, you'd put their widget on your site and people could leave you tips. All your readers had to do was fill out a tip amount and register their email address. TipJoy would send them an email and ask them to pay for their tip. It let people tip first and pay later. It was very simple. In a lot of ways it was a Web 2.0 version of the PayPal "Donate Now" button.

I thought it was an interesting idea immediately, but noticed there was a problem. There was no real incentive to leave a tip other than the warm fuzzy feeling you might get for doing so. Unforunately, that's not enough for most people. Leaving a tip for a blogger isn't like leaving a tip at a resturant. If you don't tip them, no one is going to spit in your food if you come back. On the web, no one even knows who you are. Moreover, it's just not customary to do so. You're asking people to change their behavior and you aren't giving them an incentive to do so.

We looked at this and thought about what might happen if we gave people a real inventive to "leave a tip". What if you gave people impressions. What if you gave them a voice on the blogs and websites they admire so much. Would that be enough? How many people would be willing to pay a dollar to get on Mashable even if they didn't know how many impressions they would get?

These were among some of the questions we tried to answer with the Anatomy Ads platform, and we ran into problems:

  • The system we created was too complicated.
  • Our widget didn't work on enough platforms.
  • We deviated away from IAB standard units. Huge mistake.
  • We forced people to create a separate login with us.

Part of what made TipJoy work at all was that it was so simple. They took the PayPal model, made it a little bit easier and more user friendly, and created a business out of it.

Simplicity is what has got me thinking about the idea of social micropayments and tipping again. Now we've got single sign-on services like Facebook Connect, Twitter OAuth, OpenID, MySpaceID and Google Friend Connect. What if you allowed people a quick way to create ads, testemonials, or leave shoutouts using Twitter and Facebook? Could you make social advertising work?

Filed under: openid

Ammadz says...

When NIH, or NASA researchers and scientists wanted to publish a lot of information in a way that people could easily get to it and add to it, they simply built, posted and tested their ideas. Because of the groundwork laid in social media technologies, like OpenID they did not have to ask permission, or make any changes to the core operations of the Internet. My guess is other agencies will soon copy them — hundreds of thousands of computer users, then hundreds of millions, creating and sharing content and technology. That’s the Social Web or Web 2.0 or Gov 2.0.  Call it what you will — it’s on its way, today in federal, state and local agencies and around the world.

Put another way, we in the open identity community are trying to design each new protocol to be both useful in its own right and a building block available to others. We do not think of protocols as finished products, and we are deliberately exposing the internal architecture to make it easy for others to gain a foothold. This was the antithesis of the attitude of the old closed networks, which actively discouraged any additions or uses they had not sanctioned.

Of course, the process for both publishing ideas and for choosing standards eventually became more formal. Our loose committee meetings are growing larger and organized into what our Foundation calls OpenID Working Groups. In the last two years these groups evolved and transformed a couple of times. It has some hierarchy and formality but not much, and it remains free and accessible to anyone.

OpenID technologies have grown up, too. But the culture that was built up in the beginning has continued to play a strong role in keeping things more open than they might have been. Ideas are accepted and sorted on their merits, with as many ideas rejected by peers as are accepted.

OpenID has a role to play in open government. We hope to help agencies collaborate and citizens interact with their government from where they are today in Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, VeriSign, Plaxo and the hundreds of other accounts they have today.

As we rebuild our economy, I do hope we keep in mind the value of openness, especially in industries that have rarely had it. Whether it’s in health care reform or energy innovation, the largest payoffs will come not from what the stimulus package pays for directly, but from the huge vistas we open up for others to explore.

Warm regards,

Don Thibeau,
Executive Director
OpenID Foundation

This is definitely cool.. now the question is how vulnerable the government is to be so open. I know one government who would never make anything easier for the public.

Filed under: OpenID

Mike Berkley says...

With over 300M consumer accounts and adding 5M new accounts EACH DAY, Facebook will likely reach the 1 BILLION in 2010. It is therefore safe to assume that the vast majority of Comcast, Time Warner, DirecTV, and Dish subscribers will have a Facebook account.

Without any doubt, Facebook has now become the "identity gatekeeper" of the web. Facebook is the defacto openID provider.

As such, there ought to be an easy way to leverage Facebook to solve TV Everywhere's authentication challenge.

Imagine if we could link our cable / satellite accounts to our Facebook accounts. A couple clicks using Facebook Connect on the cable provider's web site is all it would take. Once a link is established between DirecTV and Facebook, for example, DirecTV could provide Facebook with that user's content access rights (such as: user has rights to HBO content but not Showtime).

Here's a back-of-the-napkin use case of how it might play out:

  • Let's say I am a basic Comcast cable subscriber and have a Facebook account.
  • I sign into Comcast.net with my Comcast-assigned username and password. I am prompted to click on a FB Connect link and then the "Authorize" button. Comcast sends my cable TV account info to Facebook, which Facebook stores as part of my Facebook profile.
  • I then go to Yahoo and select the latest Simpsons episode to watch. Yahoo's TV Everywhere "enabled" video player (see explanation below) prompts me to sign in via Facebook Connect. I click "approve" and Facebook sends the video player my Comcast profile, which tells the video player what I'm eligible to watch. The player stores my cable profile info via a cookie and begins streaming the episode. When I try to watch a HBO content, the video player knows to block the stream.
  • The above example could take place on ANY website that uses a TV Everywhere "enabled" video player. This could simply be a "chromeless" Flash-based player with Facebook Connect implemented and logic to interpret content provisioning based on cable account profiles.
  • Using Facebook Connect for authentication, any site would be able to present TV Everywhere content and (almost) every cable subscriber would be able to participate after only a few "I Authorize" clicks.


OK, I know the above may be overly simplified, but hopefully you get the gist.

The big question here is whether the MSO's would be willing to share any customer account information with Facebook. To make TV Everywhere work easily for consumers, I believe they will need to share.

Filed under: OpenID

Filed under: openid

DeGeek says...

 

FROM THE GEEK:

“A distributed social network traditionally refers to an Internet social network that is decentralized and distributed across different providers, with emphasis on portability and interoperability.” --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_network

TRANSLATED FROM THE GEEK:

Dude walks into a bar and orders a draft. Bartender says, “Hey, Joe, how you doin'?” Dude asks how the bartender knows him, and the bartender replies, “Your friends from Bob's Pub on 52nd come in here all the time. You want me to let the guys at the office know you're here?” “Uh, no, thanks.” Joe replies. “No problem, Joe.” says the bartender, “Here, try this new draft we have on tap - your buddy Pete raved about it!”

Most sites that allow you to share information, post comments, review stuff, etc., require you to log in to do so. These sites may already know who you are when you get there if you are already logged in somewhere else like Facebook or Google, or have what is called a universal ID like OpenID.

Say you are visiting a site that supports distributed social networking. If you have an OpenID, the site already knows certain things about you – things you allow any site to know about you, like your name or email address. You can then share the site or site content with other people in your network. You can also see how other people within your network have interacted with the site by reading their reviews, comments, and so forth – just as they will be able to see how you have interacted if they visit the same site later on.

--DeGeek

Filed under: OpenID

hdknr says...

 現在GMO-PGでは、ECサイト構築オープンソース「EC-CUBE」でのOpenID決済サービス連携実証を進めている。具体的には、属性情報交換の拡張仕様「OpenID AX」を実装。年内にはAXのセキュリティ面をより強化した拡張仕様への対応も視野に入れているという。さらに、クレジットカード決済以外のさまざまな決済手段への拡張を視野に入れ、システム面、法制度面などでも関係機関と連携しながら評価・検証を行っていく考え。

Filed under: OpenID

Following a twitter discussion with Tom Wentworth , Kevin Cochrane and Stephane Croisier on the impact of Facebook Connect on Web Content Management, Stephane made following comment, which needs an answer in more than 140 characters.

Facebook Connect is a technology that allows third party web applications to connect and share data with the Facebook social network. It supports authentication, access to user properties like name and birthday, and it allows sharing of application data on Facebook, for example a website could post custom status notices that would appear in my Facebook activity stream as "Lars did xyz on site abc". Jeremiah Owyang called Facebook Connect an example of Social Colonization earlier this year. And while in Jeremiah's description the colonization turns out to the mutual benefit of Facebook and the connecting site, there is still a negative connotation with the term "Colonization", which is shared by many people in the industry, most of them outside Facebook.

The cornerstone of our discussion is that while Facebook Connect is the most popular example for social network interoperability technology, there are numerous other emerging standards and technologies that can be used to create a distributed social network. The most important examples are:
  • RSS /ATOM - a way to exchange data in feeds between applications on the web
  • OpenID - a way to identify yourself to a website using the credentials of another website
  • OAuth - a way to grant an application access to a certain part of your data on a website
  • OpenSocial - a way to exchange data about users between social networks
  • OpenSocial Gadgets - a way to embed small web applications, gadgets into other websites
  • ActivityStreams - a way to share the activity of an user on a social network with other websites
  • DISO - a collection of technologies to create a distributed social network
This open ecosystem allows developers to create distributed social networks without relying on a single centralized "Conquistador" like Facebook who controls data and access to the system. Yet, for now I would recommend website owners to invest resources first into implementing Facebook Connect. The main reasons are: you get access to the largest possible user base, the integration model is well tested and needs no fiddling with multiple, developing technologies and users already know what to expect from a Facebook Connect integration. Once the limitations of the centralized model become obvious, for example because the central hub is unable to scale, loses the trust of users, or benevolence turns into malevolence - then it is time to federate and to invest into open standards and open source.

This pattern can be observed numerous times in technology: a proprietary leader defines the market, fails in an attempt to fully dominate the market and is attacked by other players in the industry striving for standardization and openness. "If you have a problem for a long time, maybe it's not a problem, but a fact". It think this pattern is not a sign of our industries inability to learn, but a result of the basic economies of innovation.
  • Innovation is hard and costly, so you try to keep it for yourself (proprietary)
  • In technology, network effects make successful innovations wildly successful
  • In order to fully monetize the hit innovation you had, you have to keep a close grip to it
This explains why hit innovators are favoring closed solutions: it is the easiest way of getting their investment back. What worked for IBM, worked for Microsoft, worked for Oracle, worked for Apple, worked for Facebook, so why shouldn't it work for your next innovation? In fact, it will work for the innovator, it just won't work for users. Companies do not do the right things all the time, but if you are locked in into a technology, you are betting on your vendor hitting one home run after the other. And this is why users and visionary followers are pushing for openness, standardization and decentralization - another significant effort, but one that requires an existing, proven market to justify the investment in standardization.

The reason why history is repeating itself is simple: we cannot start out with a standardized solution, because we neither know what to standardize nor if it is worth the effort. Once we know, there is an established, proprietary player that is holding to his closed technology.

Filed under: openid

ciwin says...

Fwd: Video of my talk "Identity is the Platform": http://tr.im/fj_mindtrek_v mindtrek openid identity diso .. http://bit.ly/NLGmH

Filed under: openid

Alex says...

OpenID logo

OpenID is a recent standard that enables you to login to many different sites with a single account: your openID.  It seems to be catching on a bit, it has some support from big players like Microsoft and Google.

So far I think I've only used my openID to login to http://stackoverflow.com and to comment on some blogs.  I hope more sites start using it!

myOpenID is one of many places to get an openID, and they recently added a new feature letting you get an openID based on your own domain instead of theirs, so I have just given up my old openID which was http://alexblack.myopenid.com, and now I've got one from my own domain: http://openid.alexblack.ca/alex

Here's an article from ReadWriteWeb about how to setup an openID for your domain: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/myopenid_for_your_domain.php

Filed under: openid

morad says...

After OpenID being well accepted by Google, AOL, Yahoo, Facebook, and many others, it seems it convinced the US government to seriously consider for use in logging into government agency websites.

OpenID will definitely be utilized to pave the way for a US national ID card. At the most basic level, this would mean that anyone can login with a Google or Facebook or OpenID any other OpenID into government sites. Also not to mention, OpenID will become a single sign on for all systems (Finance, Social Security, etc).

Many people reject the idea of unifying credentials and such, due to the fact that it will not give the person the ability to disclose as much identity or personal information as is needed for a given transaction. You will definitely don't want to share the same information you do with IRS and Facebook.

As for me, I think it is very crucial for me to be able to control the flow information about me. And if I am about to give it to some party, then I need to know if I can trust that party.

I think what is needed most of all to preserve the freedom for internet users is "proper information" about different authentication / activity tracking schemes ~ let's say, what could be the consequences of using them? it's like the information about phishing sites, if you know enough about phishers' techniques you will be able to avoid being cheated.

Currently we are going through de facto, but weak and broken, ID elements ~ Most critical is our social security number. Since SSN is not authenticated, anyone can claim your id, which leads to identity theft and other problems. By the way, last year alone, theft was more than $50 billion...

But anyway, here is my conclusion about this whole Big Sam and less privacy. I can see possible consequences with tying a knot a National ID with OpenID, but I can see the convinence of such a thing too. Just think about how useful it will be to authenticate that you are who you are and not some Joe Doe.

I can see why people would be paranoid about privacy, but to be honest, I think the privacy fears are overblown and becoming extra-dramatic (thanks to Hollywood?). It is the nature of digital age that everything is traceable and obtainable. People behavior habits will always be monitored to generate revenue out of it (targeted marketing?).

Filed under: OpenID