Ask HN: Recommended books for a sales newbie? - <AUTHOR>

We're about to launch our first freemium based web app and will primarily be advertising the service via traditional online channels (organic search, adwords, banners etc) in order to generate online sales. Our application is aimed at marketing agencies, project teams and social media power users and can be used online, or the source code downloaded to work within corporate firewalls.
Although sufficiently experienced at marketing online, we don't really have any experience selling offline (face to face, conferences, cold-calls, events etc). Being based in London, it seems sensible to try and obtain sales offline as a lot of our UK target market will be based here, particularly at events and conferences.
We already have two other relatively successful websites, but have relied on our ad networks (not Google) to provide the sales expertise - our new project does not display banner ads, so this is not an option.
As with any startup, time is very very precious, so i'm looking to source a couple of powerful, practical sales books that don't take months to read or require weeks to learn a completely new vocabulary.
I've been searching around HN for recommendations, and have so far picked our the following books that have been suggested (i've already read The Secrets of Selling by Geoff King)
* Jeffrey Gitomer's Little Red Book of Selling * How I Raised Myself from Failure to Success in Selling - by Frank Bettger * Bag the Elephant - by Steve Kaplan
Are there any other books that you would recommend for a small startup in our situation? Any help you can offer would be appreciated. <comment><USER2> Unless you are good at sales, focus on

1\. provide a product with a compelling, obvious, and objective advantage over the competition. (either better or cheaper, but preferably both.) You don't have to be better in every way, just obviously and objectively better in some way.

2\. let people know you exist.

Seriously, this is the way to 'scale' sales. Face-to-face selling is excessively expensive, and best left to the professionals.

Personally, in person I usually end up talking up my competitors. For example, I always say I've heard good things about slicehost. Slicehost sells a directly comparable product, and my advantage over them is obvious, dramatic, and objective. Other than price, though, I haven't heard anything bad about them.

If you need to co-locate high-power boxes, or rent high CPU but low-ram boxes, I like rippleweb.com. Rippleweb charges something like $80 for each rack unit of space, no matter how much power you use. So if you have a 1u box with 2 CPUs, (likely eating more than 200w) rippleweb is cheaper than I am for co- location. (I happen to know that rippleweb has significantly lower power costs than I do. And Raphael is pretty good.)

If you do have a low-volume, high-margin product without sales skills, I'd suggest getting a hired gun. Do you think you can compete with a professional on sales? Do you think a professional salesguy could compete with you when it comes to programming after reading a few books?

I personally don't use a reseller program or commissioned sales folks, first, because I have a low margin, high volume product, so giving someone 30%, while doable, would hurt some, and secondarily, because I have very specific ideas about what I want my image to be. And personally, I like the "I'm bad at marketing" image. Besides, I'm selling out about as fast as I can put servers up, even with my nearly zero effort marketing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks @lsc! I love you approach -how are you getting word out about your hosting business? What % are you getting actual sales from word of mouth versus SEO/online marketing versus direct face to face selling?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I suggest these all from personal experience and success (yes, these books have indirectly made me money):

* Tom Hopkins - How To Master The Art Of Selling (some of it is a bit American but the overall concepts learned here are priceless)

* Harry Beckwith - What Clients Want

* Leil Lowndes - How to Talk to Anyone (not directly sales, but this is a massive part of it nonetheless)

* Sam Horn - POP! Stand Out In Any Crowd (this will help you hone your message - learning to sell is good, but if your message sucks, so will the selling)

All of these are reasonably short, cpl hundred pages at most.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the recommendations, i'll check them out and let everyone know how i get on.

I've finally just ordered my copy of 'The Four Steps to the Epiphany' - can't wait to get stuck in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would also recommend: Ice to the Eskimos: How to market a product nobody wants - by Jon Spoelstra (an awesome awesome book. More about strategy than face to face selling though. But one of the best marketing books I've read.)

Top Dog Sales Secrets: 50 Top Experts Show You Proven Ways to Skyrocket Your Sales - by Michael Dalton Johnson

Art Sobczak is another good author for learning about cold calling. I've read some of his stuff which is good - but not his books. But you may want to check his book out: How to Sell More, in Less Time, With No Rejection : Using Common Sense Telephone Techniques</comment>


How to Get Good at Making Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110301/making-money-small-business-advice-from-jason-fried_Printer_Friendly.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure this article will show you "how to make money" (I doubt any article can do that). Nevertheless, there were some gems in here that seem to contradict or generally undiscussed as part of the current startup zeitgeist & ethos.

"Making money is not the same as starting a business" -

A lot of the conversation, content, advice, etc today seems about the "art of the start" which is about fundraising, customer development, etc. Those may be necessary but definitely are not sufficient to having a business.

"...from Day One, a funded business is all about spending money...Anyone can spend money. Making it is the hard part"

Gary Vaynerchuk had a similar comment about us celebrating the fundraise. Again, fundraising is a worthwhile and perhaps useful milestone, but it's a means to an end which should ultimately be building a real sustainable business.

These points are what you'd expect from Jason Fried, but it was refreshing to see nonetheless.

<comment><USER3> I am especially fond of the make money from your customer advice - under boot- strapping. Sure there are biz that will make $ in the long term from having large volumes of something, but for the rest of us, charge early!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Duplicate:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2271421>

The printer friendly version is actually nicer to read:)

</comment><comment><USER5> I love the idea of buying and reselling the same item to see if you can make money. Very good.

<comment><USER6> This advice is horribly outdated stuff from the 90's.

With Ebay and Paypal fees eating up at least 10% of your earnings, it is highly unlikely you can just resell iPods or anything else on Ebay and make a profit.

"I love doing this, because there's no real risk involved."

No real risk except losing all the money you've invested and wasting a lot of time making Ebay entries and repeatedly learning how to pack and ship.

<comment><USER7> The point isn't earning money, but learning to sell, just at the cost of fees. And where does the risk of "losing all the money you've invested" come from? If they bring the fees to 100%?

<comment><USER6> Take it from someone who has bought and sold on Ebay recently.

The point is that you won't even be selling at the cost of the fees. Needing to make at least 10% profit due to Paypal and Ebay fees is a huge obstacle unless you are buying in bulk. In this case you are assuming a huge amount of risk for a 5-10% discount because you are probably buying 100s at a time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So many gems in this article, like this:

 _" Whether you're playing drums or building a business, you're going to be pretty bad at something the first time you try it. The second time isn't much better. Over time, and after a lot of practice, you begin to get there."_

</comment><comment><USER9> Small point that puzzled me: He said he got a reseller's license to buy stuff for himself from distributors, and he mentioned he bought "a" radar gun. I thought distributors only sold in bulk and the discount only came out because of the bulk part.

<comment><USER10> Of course, that's "mostly" true. But he was a sixteen year old with a reseller's licence. Most people love to help a kid out. So I'm pretty sure that's what happened, he talked to them and the rules were bent.

That's an even more important lesson that should be spelled out: rules are for shy people who are afraid to ask.

That reminds me of a passage from Jobs' biography. When they started prototyping the Apple I, Woz needed memory chips. But those were expensive and available only in quantity, so they would be hard to get for a prototype. Jobs just called and got the manufacturer to send some samples. That blew Woz' mind.

<comment><USER11> I've done that trick with chips a few times. Manufacturers want to sell you huge bulk supplies and their costs are so low for things like simple logic or ADC chips that they'll send you a single tube of them just for asking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "I realized that when customers shop for shoes, they do three things. They consider the look and style. They try them on to see if they're comfortable. And they consider the price. Endorsements by famous athletes help a lot, too. But the technology, the features, the special-testing labs—I can't remember a single customer who cared."

Does this apply to software or online services? What do those customers really care about?

</comment><comment><USER13> You know when you hit the Readability bookmarklet and say "god this is just beautiful", this is one of those situations.

</comment><comment><USER14> I couldn't agree more on points 5 and 6.

</comment><comment><USER15> I absolutely love the guys at 37signala. In particular, their writing style. I recently bought Rework and it was an incredibly easy to finish book, fairly short, but at the same time packed full of more information than books I've read that were twice as long on the subject.

I like the ideas put forth here. Sometimes we forget about these basic concepts like the fact that we deserve to be paid fairly for our work. How simple is that?! I know I lose sight of it all the time. I've been in business for a year (2 weeks is when my 1 year anniversary is) and I now charge ten times as much as I did the first month I started and I _still_ have to raises prices a lot more. This isn't a good thing. It's bad because I obviously undersold myself because I lost sight of the fact that I'm giving something valuable to someone and I should be well paid for it. Instead I felt guilty for charging when I was enjoying my work.

Most of their writings on business is so simple but profound (to me at least). From what I've read, it all boils down to making sure you're being paid for your work, always see if there's a better way to do things, and your business should grow into itself instead of fitting into someone else's mold (e.g. Following business advice that doesn't apply to what you're trying to achieve just because everyone else is doing it and that's what you "should do". ).

I also love the fact that they're Chicago boys. I always root for the home team, haha. I have a friend who knows Jason Fried and I really hope I get an introduction one day.

</comment><comment><USER16> s/money/wealth/g</comment>


Stephen Hawking: Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

<comment><USER2> So, "It happened because it happened"?

Seems a bit circular to me, but then again, that's the science news cycle... (see here: <http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174>)

</comment><comment><USER3> When I see a building, I know there was a creator. When I see the complexity of life, I know there's a creator. But you are all smarter than me, so you will downvote this bigtime. I DON'T CARE!

EDIT: Ok, maybe I care a little, but the truth must be spoken.

<comment> loup-vaillant You may have fallen prey to anthropomorphism here. We're so used to man-made constructions that when we see something that we did _not_ build, we tend to attribute its existence to an entity which is conveniently like us.

What did you mean by "creator"? From what I can see: us, or God. So, what we did not create (like the complexity of life), must have been created by God.

But what did you mean by "God"? Most of the time, God is refereed to as an infinitely smart, infinitely potent, utterly incomprehensible entity ("the ways of God are impenetrable"), which is very much like us ("he made us in his image"). In other words, magic with a personality.

I have a problem with magic: it explains everything, by explaining nothing. It's what in <http://lesswrong.com> they call a "curiosity stopper". In the face of magic (or God), I feel like a balrog before Gandalf: I _cannot pass_. It's very frustrating, because I'm naturally curious.

And to a point, I can satisfy my curiosity. For instance, the creator the complexity of life is evolution (skipping very very long explanation that I don't fully understand). The creator of evolution is the laws of physics, whose creator is… I don't know. For now the buck stops there. It doesn't mean, however that it should _stick_ there. That would be freezing the current boundaries of our knowledge. If I replace "I don't know" by "God", I forbid myself to look further. Maybe there _isn't_ anything further, but that I don't know.

So, you don't "know" there's a creator. You just marvel at the mystery of the creation. You don't want to _really_ explain the creation, for it's precious mystery would be gone. Or you are just uncomfortable with uncertainty, so you tell yourself a story where the scariest uncertainties are easily explained.

Or you just didn't think this through. Yet.

<comment><USER3> That is an interesting perspective, and a good explanation of it. I even like that you admit that you don't know how the complexity of life was created. I am not against science and the study of how things came to be. However, science has gotten it wrong for a very long time. It was science that said the earth was flat until it was proven otherwise. Isaiah 40:21-22 refers to the circle of the earth. We both have made a choice. I have chosen to believe in a creator God, and you have chosen not to. I believe it is easier to believe in God than not to. You keep working on explaining there's no God, I will keep marvelling at God's creation.

<comment> loup-vaillant > You keep working on explaining there's no God

Not exactly. Actually I'm wondering what's the difference. As far as I know, God ceased to mess with our world a long, long time ago. And if God created the universe, what created God?

So we're left with either the universe that explain itself (it just is), or a God that explain itself, and created the universe (and then left it alone). God is a bit like the Dragon in my Garage: everything happens as if it wasn't there.

So, my preference simply goes to the simplest explanation: that there is no God. I don't expect you to have the same preference. But I do expect you to either acknowledge that there is no difference, or to eventually identify those differences.

So, do you think there is a difference between "God exists" and "God does not exist"? Do you think his (non) existence would change your life? Do you think you would observe different things in either case? _This_ is the question I think everyone on this planet should think about for 5 minutes. Once you answered it, you basically have defined your God, whose existence is now either refutable or unimportant. In one case, science will likely find out (eventually), and on the other, well, I don't care what one believes.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Alice Goffman's Heralded Book on Crime Is Disputed - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/books/alice-goffmans-heralded-book-on-crime-disputed.html

<comment><USER2> Glad to see people doing fact checking. But none of this looks like a smoking gun to me. Some people are skeptical of her, is all I can really take from this.</comment>


Follow the money: Apple vs. the FBI - <AUTHOR> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/03/follow-the-money-apple-vs-the-.html <comment><USER2> The logic in this article seems confused to me.

The central business problem for retail banks is how to earn more from deposits than they pay in interest, and to do so at a scale of billions of dollars. Apple also needs to figure out how to make money from its pile of cash. Accepting deposits and becoming a bank would only make that problem worse - so how is "having lots of cash" evidence that Apple wants to be a bank?

An investment bank is a different animal and I would strongly disagree with the author that Apple is a "de facto investment bank". Investment banks advise clients on financial transactions and help clients hedge risk (something Apple doesn't do).

There are much more straightforward and compelling explanations for why Apple cares about security (as others in this thread have pointed out).

The only thing I would slightly agree with is that Apple maybe has an eye toward building its own payments network (a payments network is NOT a bank, by the way). But Apple isn't even CLOSE to competing with Visa and MasterCard in that regard - even if it did disintermediate the credit card companies it would have to have much much larger consumer adoption of Apple Pay plus a merchant network.

Honestly the tone and muddled structure of this article come off as a poorly substantiated conspiracy theory.

<comment><USER3> Why is this article even on the front page (#1 even) of HN? Is this guy famous? His article is pure ramblings and defies common sense.

<comment><USER4> What difference does it make if the author is famous or not? Famous people get things just as wrong as non-famous people. (And I have no idea why you think the article defies common sense. It seems like a perfectly cogent argument to me.)

<comment><USER5> I agree that fame should not be a sole qualifying attribute for getting on the front page here, but I think fame can be a qualifying factor, if used appropriately. That is, if a person is famous for being prescient in items relevant to the post, or if they are well known or respected in that sphere, that can help carry some legitimacy to their views to those that aren't entirely capable of assessing the merits of the argument, and would rather not spend time researching claims from someone that turns out to be a rambling idiot.

There are also pieces by those famous that are less arguments, and more calls to action, in which the person't fame, or reputation, helps push the message, and as such it can be factored in as part of the message. It becomes useful for assessing how widespread the reach of the message will be. E.g. Brad Pitt speaking our against a social injustice vs Kim Kardashian commenting on fiscal policy. In one the fame helps spread the message (even if it doesn't, or at least _shouldn 't_ change the merits of the message itself), in the other the fame is irrelevant.

For Stross, he's a fairly famous hard Science Fiction author, he's commented on the future and fiscal issues before, and has written books regarding interstellar money systems (haven't read yet) and possible problems with them. His fame in this area makes me want to see what he has to say, we'll see if I agree after I finish reading it...

<comment><USER6> The late Christopher Reeve said it perfectecly. It never got any coverage, but it made me instantly like him more.

Basically he got tired of reporters asking his opinion--on everything. It was right after Superman. He said in a tired voice, "Why are you asking for my opinion? Why us actors? Why not the Janitor down the hall. Guess what--that Janitor probally knows more? We read lines other people wrote?"

The reporter walked away, like Superman didn't save the day?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I actually think this article is a bit narrow minded. Apple wants the phone to be your central hub (and has succeeded). You can't live without your phone. You use it for a medical study, for private messaging, for intimate photos, etc. making it compromised and easy to crack would bring halt to that thinking and make the phone's utility moot.

It's not about Apple wanting to become a bank, for the same reason they aren't a carrier.

<comment><USER8> I am unable to imagine that. For me, my phone is an annoyance. It interrupts me, the only thing it has that is useful for me is mobile internet (that I use rarely), emergencies, and music.

How can one get so dependent on a piece of technology you ultimately do not really own?

<comment><USER9> I get that the Hacker News crowd maybe a bit more anti-social, but how do we continuously ignore what's going on in the general population (HN == anti- Facebook, anti-Big Bang Theory, basically, anything that's popular)?

Have you been to a concert? A family reunion? A movie? People waiting in line? People are looking at their phones constantly, even to the point, where they're ignoring everything else around them.

Yes, people live in their phones. It's so obvious.

<comment><USER10> The best theory of the formation of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. I check HN at least daily (often far more), and I haven't seen any posts regarding alternative theories or poking holes in the Big Bang Theory.

What origin of the universe theory does the HN zeitgeist advocate?

<comment><USER9> LMAO.. Big Bang Theory... The TV Show.

I probably should have been more explicit but the very fact that this was misunderstood, probably proves my point about HN News and pop culture..

Or maybe you're just trolling... :)

<comment> jaded-rabbit I'm new to HN and the main thing I notice ( and like) is that people here don't seem so obsessed with mundane rubbish.

BBT as example - low level comedy with canned laughter that relies on silly stereotypes for literally everything. Faux-geeks love it - the people who 'know everything about tech and gadgets' but can't read a line of code, the populist sciencey crowd rather than the science people themselves.

I'm not american so maybe just cultural difference but everything about is always seemed too try-hard and populist.

If HN spurns those hangeronners then I'm happy. Happy-ish anyway.

<comment><USER9> While the value of watching a "rubbish" comedy (or TV for that matter) certainly is debatable, the content of the show, or at least the accuracy of the physics jokes, are spot on. They are pretty rigorous in their joke fact checking :

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-big-bang-theory-has- hidden-j...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-big-bang-theory-has-hidden-jokes- down-to-a-science-1443808102)

>A lot of the humor is over the heads of the general audience.

>But there are jokes inside of jokes, and for those who

>recognize the science, they're hilarious. The show takes this

>stuff so seriously that it employs a UCLA physics professor

>to make sure it gets it right.

>Case in point: In a 2009 episode, "The Jiminy Conjecture,"

>Sheldon and Howard heard a chirp and then argued over which

>variety of cricket made the sound.

>On the whiteboard in the background is Dolbear's law, which

>states the relationship between the air temperature and the

>rate at which crickets chirp.

>"I went to a Dolbear presentation at Tufts, and they talked

>about this, in like 1989," says one high-profile fan of the

>show, Seamus Blackley, one of the creators of Microsoft's

>original Xbox game console. "I remembered it!"

>"Once I realized what was going on, it was awesome," added

>Mr. Blackley, who is also trained in physics. "It's the No. 1

>show, and it has actual physics in it."

I'm just not sure there's ever been a show that's attempted to deliver comedy around Schrodinger's Cat or Quantum Uncertainty. They do a phenomenal job with comedy surrounding such technical subjects, but just by acknowledging my fondness for the show, puts me in a minority here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The FBI already has incredible insight into banking transactions. This would not be an extraordinary power for them.

The reason Apple is being defensive is because of Edward Snowden. Apple supplies smart phones to the WORLD. Putting on a strong front to the FBI is a PR boon for selling smart phones abroad. They don't want the rest of the world to make a trusted Android fork because they can't trust Google and Apple. They want them to trust and buy Apple products! Unlocking that smart phone would cost Apple billions in foreign purchase orders.

<comment><USER12> _> Apple supplies smart phones to the WORLD._

This has been my assumption from the start of this case too. Apple can't afford to lose China, if only for the purpose of avoiding negative quarterly growth reports. Becoming known by the Chinese to be hackable by the FBI, wouldn't go over well there.

<comment><USER13> Not to mention the (obvious, ugly) next step: every country in the world demands the exact same privileges the fbi get. And why shouldn't they?

This may not be avoidable. Even blackberry had to do this ([1], dozens more). But if anyone has strong enough market power to push governments towards privacy, it's apple.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/aug/10/blackberry...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/aug/10/blackberry- saudi-arabia-ban-lifted)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm sceptical about this. The reason is that all banks in the US are subject to rather stringent know-your-customer regulation. They have to obtain documentation on their clients, which by law can be shared with the authorities. As far as I know, this makes it rather simple to trace the flow of money, at least domestically.

If Apple were to become a bank, I don't see how they would get around those regulations. In fact, I'm pretty sure that once Apple were to become a major financial institution, the authorities would certainly ask for access to data on financial flows -- and given the state of legal affairs, might have a much stronger case.

(Remark: I'm sceptical about Apple wanting to become a bank being the reason for the Apple vs. FBI conflict. I think it is nonetheless plausible for Apple to become a bank.)

<comment><USER15> > _I 'm sceptical about this. The reason is that all banks in the US are > subject to rather stringent know-your-customer regulation. They have to > obtain documentation on their clients, which by law can be shared with the > authorities. As far as I know, this makes it rather simple to trace the flow > of money, at least domestically. If Apple were to become a bank, I don't see > how they would get around those regulations._

They wont.

But that's about Apple Pay transactions, which are logged into their central servers anyway, and will be given to the government when asked, as all banks do.

This is not about data on Apple Pay transactions, but about Apple Pay's security itself.

You wouldn't use an easily compromisable phone as your be-all-end-all wallet, the same way you wouldn't use an insecure banking portal.

<comment><USER16> Apple Pay transactions are _not_ logged on Apple's "central servers". Apple has absolutely zero insight into what you buy with Apple Pay. The tokenization protocol is run by the card networks, not Apple.

<comment><USER15> Well, that's orthogonal to the argument.

Wherever they are logged, they will be available to the government -- Apple doesn't care about those data, but about the security of Apple Pay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There's a certain group of people who seem determined to see some Machiavellian motives behind Apple defending the security of its (and everybody's) encryption.

It's not just about making money. It's not just a marketing pitch. It's not just because it's technically stupid to do what the FBI wants. It's not purely driven by Apple's concern for its customers.

It's _all_ of those things at once. Everyone in the industry thinks the FBI is being boneheaded. The current and former heads of the NSA think the FBI is being boneheaded. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.

You don't need to look behind the _obvious_ motives for something underhanded. It's. freaking. obvious.

</comment><comment><USER18> Susan Landau, during[1] the House Judiciary Committee hearing:

        Smart phones are increasingly wallets, and they give us access to all
        sorts of accounts [...]. NSA will tell you that stealing login credentials
        is the most effective way into a system. [...] Here's where smart phones
        are extremely important: they are poised to become authenticators to a wide
        variety of services.

While I think that Apple has good reasons to fight the FBI's order for simple constitutional reasons, they obviously are not limited to a single motive. This comment about phones being "wallets" does fit with the idea of Apple being some sort of bank (or payment processor).

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw#t=12977](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw#t=12977)

<comment><USER19> Wallets is too limited though. Increasingly a phone is not only a wallet replacement, but also a replacement for filing cabinets, bookshelves, photo albums… to the point where having unfettered access to a smartphone is akin to having access to someone's living room and office.

<comment><USER18> > photo albums

Dr. Landau mentions this kind of use just prior to my t=12977 link to the hearing. I'm specifically quoting the part that seemed relevant to Stross's banking theory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I just don't see it. Haven't we learnt over the last few years that consumers just don't seem to give a shit about their data? Conversely, even Apple not handing over keys to the FBI still doesn't put privacy-concerned folks like us at ease about an Apple Pay service (my peers and I, at least).

I actually kind of see it as being of no importance which way the coin falls here on what's been triggered by the San Bernardino case. The security oblivious will remain oblivious regardless of the outcome (identity politics and the Kardashians are far more compelling than encryption). Equally, the skeptical amongst us will remain skeptical - even if Cook holds onto the Iphone encryption we'll always be suspicious of backroom deals or potential backdoors. Whatever the fallout, neither scenario infringes on the legitimacy of Apple as a financial institution - should that even be their play.

<comment><USER15> > _I just don 't see it. Haven't we learnt over the last few years that > consumers just don't seem to give a shit about their data?_

No, when it comes to their banking accounts and e-wallets, we haven't.

<comment><USER21> I was the initial developer on a system where the customers gave us access to their bank account and we would use their transactions to come up with (ultimately) an overall credit score.

Not just read-only access: their username and password. I was sure that would never fly. I was wrong - they had at least a few thousand customers in three months after launch. I don't know if that's a success, given the US population, but more than the zero I expected.

So... I think convenience trumps even bank account privacy.

<comment><USER18> > username and password

That's fairly strong evidence of _ignorance_ , not _consent_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What if what it's really about is that Tim Cook values privacy more than his predecessor and thinks it's important that his products reflect that value?

Given his position and the overreaching request by the FBI, I think most of us privacy-conscious HNers would behave the same.

</comment><comment><USER23> Apple becoming a bank makes some sense. It can start quite innocuous, with iTunes balances being integrated into Apple Pay somehow. Soon, allow transferring such credit between users. "Gift your friends iTunes credit right from the app."

</comment><comment><USER24> It's an interesting line of thought but I feel like there is no indication Apple execs really think this way. It still seems to me like they think they're a consumer electronics company. Tim Cook and Jony Ive slavering over entering the financial industry, I just don't see it.

When you're analyzing something, "follow the money" is always good advice. But I think it's much simpler here, following the money just means that at this point, Apple is the iPhone company, and they're going to do everything they can to guard that business. That's why they went so berserk with lawsuits regarding Android.

<comment><USER25> > _It still seems to me like they think they 're a consumer electronics > company_

It's their bread and butter, obviously.

But as the article makes clear, there is a specific type of problem associated with having as much money as Apple does, and it becomes a business in itself trying to manage those finances. Eventually, if it hasn't already, that management becomes _the_ business, whether Jony Ive wants it to be or not.

<comment><USER26> What does that have to do with becoming a bank or payments processor, though?

I think the article is premised on a misunderstanding of what banks are and are not. A company does not need to be a bank or payments processor to manage a huge pile of money for a profit goal. In fact it's way easier to do that if a company is _not_ a bank or processor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Putting on cyberpunk goggles, you could take the idea a step further and speculate that Apple is preparing to become a transnational entity, and doesn't want pesky nation-states dragging it down. They already have revenue around the GDP of Hong Kong or Israel.

<comment><USER26> The cyberpunk were wrong; the Internet has made nations stronger than ever. The NSA hacks Google and Apple, not the other way around.

<comment><USER28> Don't you get it, that's what they want you to think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't think Apple will become a bank. They could however replace VISA and Mastercard in the long term, and grab the 2% to 5% of payment fee over each transaction. Vertical integration to its best. To get there, merchants need to support Apple Pay, and Apple needs to continue selling phones. In the near future, there will be more Apple Pay enabled devices in circulation than VISAs and Mastercards. When the scale tips, credit cards will be doomed.

<comment><USER3> Don't you need credit cards to use apple pay?

<comment><USER30> Sure, now. In 5 years who knows? I could definitely see AAPL partnering with visa/mastercard/amex or even directly with banks for direct account access on a program that doesn't require a physical card. Plastic cards will become the new cash (right now cash-only businesses are a little behind the times but they still exist) and phone payments will become the new plastic.

<comment><USER3> Partnering? Sure! I think this will be the way forward, but the GP says Apple is out to get VISA and MC (as companies) and will leapfrog them with one clean swoop. This will most definitely not happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> No. The reason why Apple cares is because if everyone knew the US government could snoop on their messages and iPhone information at will, no one around the world would buy iPhones or Apple products again, due to the halo factor. It would be instant death. So Apple needs to tell the world that their information is secure from every government. Otherwise they will be out of business.

<comment><USER32> I fail to see the pitchfork-wielding crowd making its way to to the parliament of all western countries engaged in large-scale snooping (that is, most or all of them). Probably because people don't give a damn about the government reading their mail ("I have nothing to hide"/"Google is already reading it anyway").

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> >The FBI thought they were asking for a way to unlock a mobile phone, because the FBI is myopically focussed on past criminal investigations, not the future of the technology industry, and the FBI did not understand that they were actually asking for a way to tracelessly unlock and mess with every ATM and credit card on the planet circa 2030 (if not via Apple, then via the other phone OSs, once the festering security fleapit that is Android wakes up and smells the money).

Except the phone they were asking is a 5C, which doesn't support Apple Pay because it doesn't have a secure enclave or fingerprint reader.

Risk management: call me back when they figure it out. [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/business/banks-find- fraud-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/business/banks-find-fraud- abounds-in-apple-pay.html)

<comment><USER34> _Risk management: call me back when they figure it out_

Quoting article you linked: "the banks may largely have themselves to blame."

Apple Pay appears to be a secure system, and was designed by engineers to be such. The process of _getting a credit card loaded into Apple Pay_ appears to be a woefully insecure system, and was designed by banks to meet the bare minimum of regulatory compliance and no more.

Some banks actually perform some due diligence; one of my cards, when I added it on my phone, required some verification steps to prove to the issuing bank that I was indeed the cardholder I was claiming to be. But another simply loaded onto the phone instantly with no verification. It doesn't take me long to figure out how that leads to fraud.

<comment><USER33> >Because Apple wanted its system to have the simplicity for which it has become famous and wanted to make the sign-up process "frictionless," the company required little beyond basic credit card information about a user.

>Some bank executives acknowledged that they were were so scared of Apple that they didn't speak up. The banks didn't press the company for fear that they would not be included among the initial issuers on Apple Pay.

Sounds like there was pressure from Apple.

Regardless, there's absolutely no sign of the security claimed by OP. You'd at least expect parity security, not an order of magnitude more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This makes no sense. In order to act like a bank, Apple would have to track every financial transaction centrally in order to provide for auditing and reconciliation. There are already plenty of laws that give law enforcement the power to subpoena that info. Strong device security is no impediment at all if Apple is a bank.

<comment><USER35> Not if they put crypto currency wallets in there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> > _Early iterations of the iPhone notoriously lied about the security of SSL > connections to email servers; my understanding is that this led to them > being banned from some corporate and government accounts for a few years._

What? Never heard about this. Is he bullshitting about this or is there some validity behind this claim?

<comment><USER37> I found a number of articles referencing this IOS 4.2 SSL vulnerability. [http://www.peterbance.co.uk/information-security- articles/ss...](http://www.peterbance.co.uk/information-security-articles/ssl- vulnerability-in-apple-ios/)

It's somewhat difficult to find the event on Google due to results of the search being masked by the last IOS "goto fail" SSL vulnerability. [http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/04/critical-https- bug-m...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/04/critical-https-bug-may- open-25000-ios-apps-to-eavesdropping-attacks/)

While I'd imagine this is open to some interpretation, IOS is the least secure mobile OS, at least in terms of the number of vulnerabilities it has. It is not worth believing it is immume from the same failings of other OSes. [http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/31/software-with-the-most- vul...](http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/31/software-with-the-most- vulnerabilities-in-2015-mac-os-x-ios-and-flash/)

<comment><USER36> None of those links address the claim about SSL and email. And iOS4 is not an "early" iPhone.

<comment><USER37> I wanted to come back and say I was too quick to judge on the vulnerability article.

This data doesn't indicate whether bugs were found and patched internally, or were actually exposed first by malware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> As much as I like Antipope, I think he is overestimating the long term thinking of the Apple business because the time to have started the "Apple Bank" process is 2014 because they should have just acquired Simple:

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/20/simple-acquired- for-117m-wi...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/20/simple-acquired- for-117m-will-continue-to-operate-separately-under-its-own-brand/)

Then moved on from there and making it into "Simple, The Apple Bank". The fact they didn't move in that direction makes me think it never really occurred to them.

</comment><comment><USER39> _If the FBI get what they want, then the back door will be installed and the next-generation payments infrastructure will be just as prone to fraud as the last-generation card infrastructure, with its card skimmers and identity theft._

How Stross made the leap from a special version of the OS that the FBI could use to eventually crack a password to the easy clone-on-use nature of a card skimmer is completely farcical and looks like something that the mainstream non-tech press would come up with.

Just as prone to fraud? I don't understand the need for that kind of hyperbole in an article that looks like it was intended to be taken seriously.

<comment><USER40> Look I dislike that kind of hyperbole also. But I think there is a clearly defined middle step. If the FBI can force Apple to create a new OS. They can force them to install backdoors in every new OS. Then the phones become "...just as prone to fraud as the last-generation card infrastructure."

And given Juniper systems was likely a government placed backdoor, there is ample evidence this is true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> >> Their phones are, in many respects, more secure than the ATMs and credit card infrastructure we've used to accessing our bank accounts.

Well, except that the ATM doesn't permanently store your credentials, potentially[1] making them available to anyone who takes possession of it.

Not to mention: it's possible, though not easy, to take possession of a whole ATM. However, the people who have done so were after the bank's money, not _your money_.

Whereas if someone steals _your device_ they're potentially[1] getting hold of _your money_.

_____________________

[1] Read: it's only a matter of time.

</comment><comment><USER42> Apple has an obligation as a financial institution to win this case. Apple is a business, and it has customers who won't want to buy phones which they know are purposefully compromised from a security standpoint. In addition, those customers don't want to buy phones for which the US government has unlimited access to. Apple has a financial interest to keep their devices as secure as possible and act in the interests of their customers, the ones who drive their business.

</comment><comment><USER43> I completely understand why Apple is not backing down on this. Even if this backdoor is for one phone, the possibility of having that backdoor stolen is too great a risk to produce. When looking at the big picture, Apple is looking at the side effects this backdoor could produce and doesn't want to take the risk. I can hardly blame them either!

<comment><USER44> seems to me the risk of having the backdoor stolen is an overstated vulnerability. Isn't it the same risk as having the iphone source code stolen? Hasn't happened yet has it? If the source code were stolen, someone else could engineer a backdoor. I don't think the overall security risk increases by the existence of a backdoor on a single phone. Amiwrong? That said, I'm happy that Apple is pushing back, but let's be clear about the technical facts.

<comment><USER45> To be clear about the technical facts: good luck pushing that engineered backdoor to an iPhone without Apple's keys.

Having your source code stolen gives your competitors an edge by letting them know, for free, how you've implemented things that might have cost you millions/billions to research and produce.

The biggest threat to having source code stolen is exposing the potentially embarrassing paperclips, string and gum holding a product together.

> Hasn't happened yet has it?

Years ago and at the time the most profitable software company, Microsoft had its flagship products, the NT kernel and Windows 2000, source code leak.

It isn't unheard of.

> I don't think the overall security risk increases by the existence of a > backdoor on a single phone.

If the precedent is set for this single phone, then the security of other phones is at stake. This is also a red herring. It is not about this singular phone.

edit: You do not need the source code to find a backdoor or vulnerability[0]

[0] every closed-source product that's ever been exploited

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It seems more likely Apple wants leverage over banks to cut exclusive deals in order to sell more devices.

The retail banking industry suffers from low consumer satisfaction, as it earns the bulk of its profits via fees, personal loans, and mortgages. Apple historically wants no part of that. Competing on margin by mitigating fraud doesn't make sense.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's too far fetched esp given a very simple incentive exists for Apple to be pro-privacy - market differentiation.

Given Tim Cook's background he may also truly believe in privacy for the masses but that's a byproduct. Apple knows that with all their competitors slowly but steadily stepping up their game and offering solid smartphones for 1/3rd of the iPhone's price and little practically left to do for Apple to stand out in non-USA markets, privacy is their one big appeal. That plus lower priced iPhones and Apple's brand value practically guarantee that Apple will stay ahead - take out one leg and it starts to look shaky.

I think they'll continue to emphasize it to sell iPhones until they find another market that's as lucrative as the iPhone is.

</comment><comment><USER48> > Its legendary $120-150Bn in cash

For all the dramatic prose in this article about Apple's finances, they managed to miss by a fair bit on how much cash Apple has.

It's closer to $215 billion. $16.6b in cash or equiv, $21.3b in short-term, $177b in long-term marketable securities (most of which can be converted to cash relatively quickly, so when calculating Apple's cash pile that is commonly included).

If you remove their $53b in long-term debt (which has a very low interest cost on it) you get $162b. The article didn't specify that it was subtracting debt of course.

</comment><comment><USER49> This makes sense to me at a high level. A bit too wordy for my tastes but yes, if I were Apple I'd want to be super secure in part because I want to be big player in the payments arena.

Although it makes it's not particularly revealing. Yes, companies want more control over security because that allows them to pursue business opportunities. No need to even follow the money here, it's just common sense.

</comment><comment><USER50> There are many theories in this post, but no facts.

As the comments depict, becoming a bank will only make things harder and if someone trying to get profits out of a product or a service is wrong, then everything in this world is wrong.

You are talking about legacy software used by banks. Are you trying to say that we should not advance in financial systems? Or are you saying that they are superficially unbreakable?

<comment><USER51> I think the author is saying neither of those things, but that bank software is pretty much uniformly rooted in the stone age, updates come at a glacial pace, and Apple could use its significant software engineering prowess to build something substantially better.

He gives the example of Apple being in a better position to detect fraud, for instance, by virtue of the fact that Apple knows where your phone / watch is, and by extension where you are, compared to a credit card company that only knows where your card has been used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Not just Apple Pay or being a bank, also about health data and about being trusted in other markets than United States. Good article, though.

</comment><comment><USER29> Apple Pay sits on top of the credit card industry. Do you believe they will remove that layer one day, and tie directly to your bank account? As I understand the payment industry is incestuous and has become a commodity. Its ripe for anyone to replace it. Apple seems to be in a good position to do that over time.

<comment><USER26> I don't know why they would bother.

Apple Pay as architected now outsources all the pains in the butt to the existing payment processors: getting terminals into stores, dealing with chargebacks and fraud, and providing regulatory compliance.

Apple gets to deal only with with their existing customer base, take a tiny tax for authenticating transactions, and enhance the value perception of the iPhone and Watch, which is where they actually make their money.

<comment><USER29> Credit Cards, issuers, acquirers, gateways, etc - the whole payment intermediary grabs around 3%. Most of that could all go to Apple one day. Why leave it on the table?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> What is the purpose in speculating the one true reason that Apple is doing this? They're a massive company with many needs and desires, so there are probably many interlocking factors here. Chasing the simple narrative is a very human game, but it's not really purposeful, it's just play.

</comment><comment><USER54> This doesn't add up. The biggest asset that the US TBTF banks have right now is their tight relationship with the federal government.

Apple could certainly start competing on their home turf with respect to payments and checking accounts, but there's very little profit in that.

</comment><comment><USER55> I think the premise of following money is interesting, but the conclusion I completely disagree with. I believe Apple's focus on privacy is a direct challenge to Google's business model. Apple makes all their money from mobile device sales, don't they?

<comment><USER56> But maybe the growth in the phone business is limited - so they look for various services like music/tv, and banking could be one such service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> > unlike the banks and the credit card settlement network they're not running > on incrementally upgraded legacy infrastructure designed in the 1950s

Good point, Apple's incrementally upgraded legacy infrastructure was designed in the 1990s.

</comment><comment><USER58> Hm... An article with no concrete proof.

Then, here is my story about Apple vs FBI (sceptical too).

FBI (really, NSA) knows of only one phone (company) that is easily crackable, and its IPhone.

So Why a sue?

This has to be taken utmost care. When FBI sues against Apple, and they say they can't crack (some say, hack), people think that its true, and they trust more in Iphone. Result: More sales for Iphone. FBI (NSA) has more phones crackable. Benefit is for both.

So Why Android is less crackable? Answer: It's not. But a user can easily replace it OS with something safe (like, another android like replcant OS). So, FBI (NSA) shall have to try harder to break into.

So why not windows phone? Hm... You should not store any obsolete data in your mind.

Thank you.

<comment><USER59> except the FBI changed course, not only saying that the iphone was hackable, but that it was hackable by groups other than the government, which, if someone valued their privacy, they would probably find that statement concerning

</comment></comment><comment> ibn-alfatal Around 2030 there will likely be a quantum computer running Shor's algorithm efficiently.

</comment><comment><USER60> I think Apple's motivation to maintain security a lot simpler. Apple had to demonstrate to the Chinese government that its devices were secure and could not be used to spy on Chinese users. If Apple gives up on that, they'll lose those sales.

</comment><comment><USER61> Apple is already operating a private hedge fund to deal with their excess capital.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital)

</comment><comment><USER62> 1\. Regulate market capitalization 2\. Tax corporate revenues

</comment><comment><USER63> this in no way effects whether one is trusted for payments.

</comment><comment><USER64> TL;DR: Apple wants us to trust them, because they want to build a bank.

<comment><USER15> Actually, go read the article. It's worth it, and has much more nuance than this.

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra It is about our freedoms and we've got to defend them!

</comment><comment><USER65> FBI only needs Apple signing keys. And as lavabit showed - they can compel Apple to produce them.

Apple are a big company - they cannot be trusted by default. And banks right now make their money in two ways - gambling with the money of the rich and using all kind of creative late fees to prey on the poor. Neither of those requires uber secure pocket ATM.

<comment><USER48> That's incorrect. The major US banks today do not primarily make their money from either gambling with the wealth of rich people, or from low income banking. Not even remotely close.

The second largest business for Wells Fargo - America's most valuable bank - for example, is wholesale banking from businesses with at least $20m in sales, where they get about 35%-40% of their profit.

You'll find that an extremely small percentage of profit is derived from 'the poor' in Wells Fargo's business (the same holds true for Citi, BofA and JP Morgan). Their community banking segment, which targets the median and higher, is their prime profit center, contributing about 60% of their profit. You don't earn $23 billion per year in profit on late fees from the poor, very few of whom have accounts with Wells Fargo to begin with.

One very quick look at the largest financial services companies that do target the relatively poor, reveals how little profit there is in that segment compared to what the big banks do. It doesn't scratch the surface for a company the size of Wells Fargo.

<comment><USER66> > That's incorrect. The major US banks today do not primarily make their money > from either gambling with the wealth of rich people, or from low income > banking. Not even remotely close.

For US banks - 42.3 billion collected in account fees over 12 months, 32.5 billion of which were over-draft fees. So yeah, quite a bit of it they do.*

[0] time.com/money/4071290/bank-overdraft-charges-fees/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> The elephant in the room is we are building a new religion based on technology.

FBI & Apple are both stupid.

Computers always ends up to be used in a real physical world. This is called the analogic hole.

This has since decades enable to weaken crypto with side channels (temperature of CPU, times of computation, EM radiation, noise of the keys...).

And how useful is it to spend billions of dollars to break new technologies when at the end human will still interact with computers with analog means?

Microphones, cameras are still working. And it covers 30% of the surface of what a secret service requires to be able to know. And cold war has left government with more than enough cheap efficient technologies. Being smart and foxy covers 15%. 5% is PURE LUCK.

Science is about aligning the cost of detection with its efficiency. Crypto is efficiently made so that breaking algorithms is more and more costly. Detection by measure/math is always failing at one point. (false positive/negative)

And what about the remaining 50% ? It is HUMINT. When people love the place where they live and trust their government they are more likely to snitch the criminals. To help keep the social peace.

Yes, social concord is what protect a nation. People feeling united and trusting their own governments.

I think that electronic intelligence is counterproductive.

I also believe we would live in a better world if laws and moral where in sync with who we really are. If we did not required secrecy to be who we are because governments made illegal stuff that are not crime, except in the eyes of a minority.

Education could help too; people when fearful are behaving like dangerous trapped animals. Education purpose is not about making citizens obedient or fearful, it is about making them able to become political leaders themselves.

Every citizens should be trained in the optic they will be a member of the parliament. The next Benjamin Franklin, Roosevelt, JFK, Lincoln ...

USA has beaten the former colonial power with education. Scientific education. It could be time USA become a great nation again.</comment>


Obama administration moves forward with unique Internet ID for all Americans - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/09/obama-administration-moves-forward-with-unique-internet-id-for-a/ <comment><USER3> The silver lining is that by the time this project goes through study after study, development, testing, and finally deployment 5-10 years will have passed and the Internet will fundamentally change in ways that either makes this instantly irrelevant or impossible to enforce.

<comment><USER4> We need a publicly-controlled identity infrastructure that's compatible with the Internet. The problem isn't that internet ID is somehow evil, but rather the government.

<comment><USER5> Remind me again of why we "need" a solution such as this? All this screeching reminds me of the people wanting a centralized solution to spam in the 1990s via government control or micropayments. We don't hear from them anymore because of spam filters and increased storage and bandwidth.

My google account has double authentication now, telephone as well as a second email address, and serves as a central repository for all my other accounts across the web if I happen to forget a password. I can change providers if I want as well. Further, my VISA card is tied to my identity for purchases and donations. But anything that doesn't involve that isn't tied to my identity.

So please just go shove it with your "need". It just makes me furious that this is even being proposed, it's totally unnecessary meddling and we all KNOW it will be abused.

<comment><USER4> "Remind me again of why we 'need' a solution such as this?"

There are lots of services that people want that are impossible to build without a way to prove that someone is who they say they are. E.g. better reputation systems.

"we all KNOW it will be abused."

Obviously. That doesn't mean there isn't a need though.

<comment><USER6> A better _REPUTATION_ system (??!!??!!) is the best you could come up with? I cannot think of a less important application of a national ID card.

And even in this area, Amazon/Newegg have solved the pretty nicely with the "verified purchaser" tag. How is the national ID card system better?

For Serious Stuff (TM) like opening a stock trading account, laws have already been passed to make an all-electronic signup as binding as a paper signature.

We criticize China when it does something like this, but when America does it's all fine.

<comment><USER7> I think you are dismissing this on pretty unresolved ground.

To claim that Amazon/Newegg solved it with "verified purchaser" is simply on unsubstantiated ground.

I could find plenty of serious uses for reputation systems. In fact I would claim that reputation systems is going to be the future of verification.

<comment><USER6> Please explain why such a "serious" use cannot be implemented with today's technologies. You can trivially ask people to give you their license number and run a lookup to confirm that they're who they claim to be at signup time. Yes, it's not gratis (see publicdata.com). But you stipulated that this is "serious" use, so that shouldn't be a problem.

<comment><USER7> Huh? I never said it couldn't be I said it wasn't.

But again it's not simply a question about identification as in per the right username/password/license plate.

I can log in and pretend to be anyone, in fact I can have multiple different accounts and be multiple different people.

But when you add social proofing on top of it you have created a verification mechanism that is much stronger since it includes my very existence, my friends, what I do etc. Things that can't as easily be faked.

<comment><USER6> > But when you add social proofing on top of it you have created a > verification mechanism that is much stronger since it includes my very > existence, my friends, what I do etc. Things that can't as easily be faked.

The point many of the critics here are making is that anonymity and privacy is _required_ for a functioning democracy.

Why does it matter _WHO_ is saying something. Shouldn't the most important thing be _WHAT_ is being said?

Even in today's "everything goes" situation, libel/slander etc hasn't reached epidemic proportions to require policing everything people say.

And _even_ then, I would much rather have a central clearinghouse where _aggreived_ parties can register to have their names etc not be displayed by web sites (think of it as a robots.txt for humans). Note that this can be implemented without an online ID and is different from the current proposal.

I still haven't understood what is your problem with today's situation where people can create as many alter egos as they wish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We are going to end up with something sooner or later.

The fact is that we want (and can) enter into contracts on the Internet. In order to enforce contracts we must have identities. Since the Government (specifically the judiciary) enforces contracts, this means that we must be entering into these contracts under Government-managed identities.

Currently we acquire and prove this Government-managed identity using an ad- hoc, decentralised, system with much duplication. I can use a passport or my driver's license or my birth certificate or perhaps some utility bills or some combination. This causes various problems, including fraud and waste.

If two parties mutually choose to enter into a contract over the Internet, and this contract is to be enforced by the judiciary, then it would be ideal for them to be able to verify each others' legal entities and authorisation. I think that properly implemented this could eliminate a large amount of online fraud.

Nothing about the principle of such a system inherently creates privacy problems, since when parties enter into a contract they already expect to reveal their identities to each other, and nothing would necessarily be forcing people to reveal their identities in any other situation, just the same as is the case at the moment.T here is a risk of a slippery slope of course; I can't deny that.

There's no reason such a system has to be centralised, though. X.509 certificates would work fine, for example, issued at the same time as a birth certificate, with each local office as a CA.

Unfortunately, the problem is with implementation. I don't think that any government is competent enough to put a system together that does meet privacy requirements, and there are too many self-interested parties who would influence and corrupt the design of such a system.

<comment><USER9> Sorry the Engadget piece is full of FUD and light on details. I was at the event and covered it for Wired.com.

This initiative is coming out of NIST inside the Commerce department, with smart folks there who know this 1) a tough problem, 2) needs to be an open standard and 3) that the feds role here is best as being the ones who convene the people in the room.

[http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/obama-strategy-for- on...](http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/obama-strategy-for-online-id/)

There's got to be a better way to prove you are real and legit, than giving some company the right to pull a sub-one dollar sum of money from your bank account and then confirming that to them online.

OpenID is fine, so far as it has gone, but right now it looks like Facebook is winning the war for identity and authentication. Having the feds behind an open standard hardly means you are getting the Real ID of the internet.

You've got a few choices of who's going to do this in the future. The feds, your bank, Facebook, PayPal or your mobile phone carrier. Personally, I'd prefer an open system where I have my choice of 10 providers all using open standards, than having to rely on multiple closed systems like giant bank or Facebook or Paypal.

<comment><USER10> >"There's got to be a better way to prove you are real and legit, than giving some company the right to pull a sub-one dollar sum of money from your bank account and then confirming that to them online"

I've never had any problem with this method, what are your objective quantifications for why a 'internet id' from the Commerce Department would solve this better? Why does taxpayer money need to be spent on a problem that is already solved to a sufficient degree by commercial forces?

<comment><USER9> There's literally nothing in the proposal about an internet ID from the Commerce Department. While I'm not thoroughly convinced we need better identification on the net, the proposal here is about creating _standards_ for stronger identification -- something like OpenID with the weight of the federal government trying to get industry, privacy and security groups in the same room. The alternative, it seems to me, is to watch Facebook corner the market on consumer identity, while defense contractors or the banking industry wins government contracts, and the latter eventually create some very badly designed system for citizens to log in to government agency websites.

While I'm also deeply opposed to any government-run program, that's not what's happening here.

I'm also a bit disappointed here with Hacker News. Folks here could easily imagine an internet that is easier and safer with a better way for users to manage their identities, while retaining both privacy and the possibility of pseudonimity and anonymity. Instead, mostly what's shown up in the border here is a Reddit thread with people saying, "You can take my anonymous internet but you'll have to pry the keyboard out of my cold dead hands." HN is usually much better than this.

<comment><USER10> "I'm also a bit disappointed here with Hacker News. Folks here could easily imagine an internet that is easier and safer with a better way for users to manage their identities"

I'm disappointed with you. Why do your values for a "safer and better" internet have to be imposed on me? Where is your objective data showing this will be a "safer and better" internet? Is internet use in Australia "safer and better" because they choose to govern and censor it? To me this sounds like the marketing-speak of the war on drugs and terror.

Furthermore, why do I need a federal program to do this? There are already identity management solutions and standards widely available, namely Shibboleth <http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/>, which is deployed across California State Universities and universities across the U.S. There is no reason it could not be leveraged for federated identity.

>"While I'm also deeply opposed to any government-run program, that's not what's happening here."

Pardon? Just because it is a private-public partnership does not exclude the government from ownership, but don't trust me, go read the source yourself: <http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf> That is the draft from when it was proposed for DHS. You can see in the document itself the references to "accountability" of these private partners to the government in their "Identity Ecosystem".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Profile: Sebastian Marshall. Internet ID 353-808-A331. Known aliases: "lionhearted". Primary contact info: firstname.lastname@example.com

Political positions: A believer in liberty, pro-international travel and open borders, tends towards mild hostility towards regulation. Generally law- abiding.

Friendliness to American Interests Rating (FAIR): 72/100

<comment><USER12> That 353-808-A331 is the lower 64 bits of your ipv6 address anytime you do anything online. You won't have to login anywhere! If you need to do something important you'll just sign with your private key and the gov will graciously provide the public key keyserver. I've been trying to tell that to everybody for years.

Your Fair Score is actually your TerrorScore. Would you like to sort social media profiles by TerrorScore? They will undoubtedly use Google PageRank like Eigenvectors to calculate it based on who you're linked to and your ipv6 traffic profile.

I hate to be an Ipv6 cynic but after all, Ipv4 NAT is the best thing that ever happened to online anonymity.

<comment><USER13> _IPv4 NAT is the best thing that ever happened to online anonymity._

There's exactly one person behind my NAT; how many are behind yours?

<comment><USER14> Yes, but how many people know that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'll be getting one of these when hell freezes over. If that means starting my own Internet, then that's exactly what I'll do.

<comment><USER16> I would like to see more local (at the town level) shared networks. Something like cheap wi-fi base stations (really cheap!) that could link up a local area and have a good directory of what material people host to be shared, local bulletin boards, etc.

I live in a rural area and several of my friends are going the self sufficient route and my wife and I are at least putting in enough solar panels to generate about 3/4 of the electricity that we currently use.

The country I live in (USA) is in rapid decline and it would be naive to believe that all utilities and infrastructure will stay online 100% of the time. Having a useful local "localnet" would be a good idea, and could be fun also as a community activity. Perhaps libraires would be good hubs and meeting places to set this up. Even better to also get the local police, fire department and city government involved: something to bring the whole community together.

<comment><USER15> The USA is in rapid decline? Let me guess, because teenagers use Facebook, spell "you" as "u" and house prices are not increasing as quickly as 5 years ago?

<comment><USER17> You're on the right track, actually. Academic motivation is virtually nonexistent in the States, whereas in China kids go to school on Saturdays and go to private cram schools until nighttime. A nation is made or broken by its education systems since after all, knowledge is power.

<comment><USER15> _Academic motivation is virtually nonexistent in the States, whereas in China kids go to school on Saturdays and go to private cram schools until nighttime. A nation is made or broken by its education systems since after all, knowledge is power._

Well, the OP said "rapid decline". This is a gradual non-improvement, which is not the same thing.

Also, does going to school 7 days a week increase learning? I can sit in front of my computer and type stuff for 24 hours straight. Doesn't mean the result is any good.

<comment><USER18> Knowledge is leverage. Leverage works as interest upon interest. Therefore gradual non-improvement is the same as rapid decline. Loosing 3 percent a year where everybody is standing still is not that different as standing still in a world where everybody is accumulating interest.

Also what I have noticed with myself ( I had a decadent phase in life, moved on and now look on "friends" who stayed where they were) - <USER2> consumerism might not look as bad when you start doing it. But it erodes your soul it makes you weak and timid. Arm the lumpenproletariat with high tech - and you won't get "a little bit weaker" society - you get idiocracy.

A human to be happy must play hard, work hard and love hard. This is a virtue that most everybody is abandoning these days. I'm not advocating for repression (like China, India or western world of old), I'm advocating that we don't forget a passion in our lives and that we do not fail to show it to our children. Else everything is in vain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This article is pretty light on details. Here's a quote from the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt:

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

Read more: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20027800-281.html#ixzz1AZD...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20027800-281.html#ixzz1AZDYQ3Kk)

<comment><USER20> _I don't have to get (one)_

Cool. They've got the OK from me. It could turn out to be neat, and so long as it's optional I'm not worried.

<comment><USER21> _so long as it's optional I'm not worried._

I've got a bridge to sell you, too.

Social Security Numbers, we were promised, would not be used as personal identifiers. See, e.g., [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EFD71039F...](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EFD71039F935A15754C0A96E958260)

 _FOR many years, Social Security cards carried an admonition that they were to be used "for Social Security and tax purposes -- not for identification."_

You've got my personal guarantee that if an optional Internet ID is created today, it will be required before long. This is how the system works. Witness the gradual ratcheting up of (ridiculous) security measures in airports if you're skeptical.

<comment><USER22> That's pretty obvious. Just in a few month government and every established corp will require those for it's online services. Online banking, paypal&co, all app stores, gaming, taxes, healtcare, insurance ...

<comment><USER21> Prediction: it'll start with the gov't allowing safe harbor for sites that use these IDs, when questions regarding copyright, pr0n, etc., come up.

If your users post copyrighted material, e.g., then you'll be offered safe harbor only if you enforce registration via the national ID. Same deal for people posting "naughty" content -- which is more insidious than it sounds, because of the overlap between (a) sexual content and privacy concerns in discussions about, e.g., STDs; or (b) in the wake of wikileaks, being hassled about publication of, or support for those publishing, "leaked" data be it from government or from industry.

It's necessary that we provide a way for people to maintain anonymity, but the government wants to offer enough carrots to divert our horse from that path.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If it waddles like a national ID system and quacks like a national ID system, then it's probably a national ID system. Here in the UK we are fortunate to have recently dumped plans for a national ID system. Americans should do the same.

<comment><USER24> Just out of curiosity, if the national government in the UK doesn't issue IDs, who does? Counties? Cities?

<comment><USER25> Passports are issued by the UK Passport Office, and driving licenses by the DVLA (Driving & Vehicles Licensing Association). These are both effectively government agencies.

However, as having a passport or a driving license is not compulsory, there were plans to have a national identity card, as is the case in many European countries that would be compulsory for all adults. This has fairly recently been scrapped before it was ever adopted. Partly because the cost ended up being estimated at £18B (US$30B). Quite how a database and some photo cards of 60M people(less if you only include adults) would cost that much is a mystery that only governments can solve!

<comment><USER26> Really? Lets think about it.

* First up we gotta biometrically scan every citizen of the United Kingdom for starters. That's 64 million people.

\- Scanners

\- Appointment Management

\- Advertising Campaigns (to remind people to register/go)

\- Chasing people who aren't registered

* Then for that to make sense you need to be able to validate people in places.

\- Invest in technology to biometrically match people (readers etc)

\- Train users/operators

\- Handle the kinks in that tech (complaints, false positives).

\- Handle any legal issues.

\- Create the back end system to auth (somewhat non trivial)

\- Load balance

\- Security Checks, Penetration testing, etc, etc. No point in the whole system if its easily spoofed, right?

Then of course we need to produce the cards and send all the cards to those 64 million people. Also this system is supposed to integrate with existing government systems. You can imagine what I nightmare that probably was going to be.

My point being that its only a database and some photocards in the sense that I can write Stackoverflow in a weekend ;).

Tbh your belief that it was only photocards means that you probably didn't appreciate the full scope of the legislation. It actually sickened me how the entire focus of the debate on the ID system was on the cards when they were the least important aspect of it.

If I wore a tin-foil hat i'd even go so far as to suggest that politicians intentionally focused on the card part of it to divert our attention from the rest of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I shared my thoughts in detail about this more than a year ago, we should get out in front or as now coming true my prediction was, "As private industry and a world society I hope we can take care of this ourselves before it gets so out of control Congress tries to figure out how to do it and we end up with some horrible mess of a "National ID and Digital Identity Act" that looks at it only from the perspective of the USA and makes it very difficult for non-US citizens to do anything online (as most of the major Internet properties are US based) creating a whole new barrier for 3rd world citizens to overcome."

[http://www.bretpiatt.com/blog/2009/07/25/cloud-computing- mak...](http://www.bretpiatt.com/blog/2009/07/25/cloud-computing-makes- blacklists-obsolete-now-is-the-time-for-digital-identities/)

<comment><USER22> >>As private industry and a world society I hope we can take care of this ourselves before it gets so out of control Congress tries to figure out how to do it and we end up with some horrible mess of a "National ID and Digital Identity Act" that looks at it only from the perspective of the USA and makes it very difficult for non-US citizens to do anything online (as most of the major Internet properties are US based) creating a whole new barrier for 3rd world citizens to overcome.

Major internet properties are international - Facebook, Paypal, Skype, Google, Microsoft's, Groupon, etc. Most countries have the technical talent to create clones of successful US startups. The problem is local governments will be able to control those local forums and social networks. So killing online freedom in US will kill it worldwide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This headline is actually pretty misleading. From what I've seen of the project, it is not about the government issuing online identities. Rather they've realized that people already have identities from services like Facebook and Google as well as banks.

This project is aimed at making it possible for people to interact with government agencies using identities they already have. Some interactions require very little security and knowledge of who a person is (leaving a comment here for example) while others (paying your taxes) require quite a bit.

<comment><USER29> Is it really in the best interest of collecting taxes to defer authentication (and even authorization) to a third party such as Google, or even banks?

<comment><USER28> I interact with the IRS once a year having to remember a short PIN I created years ago and can't figure out how to change. My bank has a very strong knowledge of who I am partially via <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer> and because I login to it on a much more frequent basis.

It isn't that my bank would change the role of the IRS, but I'd login to the IRS using a strong identity issued by my bank versus this silly PIN I use today.

<comment><USER30> ...or you could use the mail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is this done anywhere else in the world? It is the scariest of the scary Big Brother measures I've seen recently...

<comment><USER32> Yes, Denmark:

<https://www.nemid.nu/>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NemID>

Most public institutions as well as many private (including the banks) have switched to this system.

Our government already know just about everything about us (e.g. few people need to fill out tax forms), so this has not been very controversial. The largest controversy has been with the security.

<comment><USER33> "(e.g. few people need to fill out tax forms)"

Actually I don't get why the gov makes people do one in the US and Canada. Most people have their income reported to the gov by their employer. That information should be downloadable by people and then what is missing could be filled in, mistakes fixed, deductions not already calculated added...

<comment><USER34> The government would like to know about other things you are doing on the side as well. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Actual draft of the proposal from June 2010:

<http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf>

Note that if [generic scary three letter agency] wants to spy on you it's already quite easy for them to do so (see FISA, CALEA, NSLs, Sugar Grove, etc).

<comment><USER36> >Note that if [generic scary three letter agency] wants to spy on you it's already quite easy for them to do so (see FISA, CALEA, NSLs, Sugar Grove, etc).

It's not really about spying.

It's about a government bureaucracy having the power to control your identity.

If Visa cancels my card I can get an AMEX. The CIA has limited reach here.. the alphabet soups can't easily freeze my bank account.

But if the government controls my ID card, they can shut me down utterly and I have no recourse aside from the broken judicial system.

The simple fact of the matter is that corporations such as Visa and HSBC and Equifax are more trustworthy than the government.

Giving the government the ability to authenticate humans online is giving them WAY TOO MUCH UNCHECKED POWER.

<comment><USER35> _But if the government controls my ID card_

Check all that apply:

[ ] State Picture ID

[ ] Passport

[ ] Social Security Card

 _The simple fact of the matter is that corporations such as Visa and HSBC and Equifax are more trustworthy than the government._

You should really read the proposal. It's a federation of privately run PKI authorities. Potentially people like Visa, HSBC and Equifax.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I can sympathize with discontent about this, but almost nobody has brought up the positive uses of unique Internet ID.

Suppose you want a system where you want to signal to all internet companies that you don't want your browsing data to be harbored without your consent. The ID system would allow the creation and enforcement of such system.

The support for this comes in part because of pressure from the groups who are concerned about privacy and fretting over how their browsing data is used. While infringement of privacy hampers the growth of ecommerce, complete ban on harboring data hurts e-businesses (they won't be able to advertise efficiently). The solution to it is to create a free market: assign everyone a unique id, to which your preferences about harboring date will be assigned. Even better, data associated with that id can be considered proprietary, and users can license it to companies who are willing to pay for it and users can sue companies that infringe on this proprietary data bc courts will recognize it as solely yours. This is a good start if government wants to step in to protect your privacy from the "evil" corporations, while not hindering the growth of e-businesses.

Ideally, you will be protected from corporations who are after your private data. Government, however, will surely continue using it the way you don't want.

<comment><USER38> The trouble is who has _both_ ownership over and is able to exercise control over your identity data? I do like your idea of using licensing as a possible mechanism.

It's one thing to say the government will host the ID data for free, for every American. (Or at least every American they deem worthy of a proof-of-online- identity certificate.)

But possession is often viewed as 9/10ths of the law. Calling it "my" data is misleading if they really mean "data about me."

Would I like to have a permanent, personal and authenticated key value store to in conjunction in some interpersonal or person-machine transactions? Absolutely.

But I don't see how having a government issued identity solves the problem of how my browsing data might be misused elsewhere.

It would seem that it only adds more personally-identifiable metadata that could be intercepted, tracked, or stolen along the way.

How would such an ID system enable the creation and enforcement of a do-not- track list? That sounds appealing, but how does my identity being tracked stop me from being tracked?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> To those who would say "it'll be optional - you won't need one to search Google, check you email, etc." I point out that there are already huge efforts to track people across domains and build profiles of them. Private companies are ALREADY slobbering over this, and paying good money for even anonymized datasets. If this system goes into practice, it will simply be good business for websites to require your ID as part of the signup process. Also, open networks (like attwifi, etc.) may begin to require these as well. They could build nice juicy datasets of the Starbucks laptop crowd, and believe me they'd be hot selling items.

That's probably a best case scenario by the way. How long until it's mandated that your ISP has your internet ID, and public networks (attwifi, etc.) are required to get it to let you out into the internet?

</comment><comment><USER40> This sounds very Orwellian, but I doubt much will become of this. Based on the statement the article attributes to Locke, it sounds like they're selling it to us as a single sign-on provider. Somehow, I doubt this will become as popular as current single sign-on providers such as Facebook or Google without legislation.

<comment><USER41> Couldn't they bully the ISPs to force everybody to use it? Seems like we should worry when they set up the groundwork for something like that, and not after the fact.

<comment><USER40> I don't see how this would be implemented at the ISP level, but maybe that's a failure of my imagination. I'm imagining something similar to Open ID.

With no details about the government's plan for an internet ID, we're left to our imaginations, which probably vary widely from person to person.

<comment><USER42> _I don't see how this would be implemented at the ISP level_

Simple: all new contracts with any ISP will require the customer to provide the internet ID.

All existing contracts have to be renewed no later than {date}, and if the customer fails to provide the internet ID by that date, he is forcefully disconnected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Sounds like Jeff Atwood got his wish!

[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/11/your-internet- drive...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/11/your-internet-drivers- license.html)

</comment><comment><USER44> In a blue block on page 18 of <http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf> :

> _Envision It!

An individual learns of a new and more secure way to access online services using a strong credential provided by a trustworthy service provider._

Running this past my parents was met with a blank stare, followed by "what?". And they're significantly better about their online habits than most people, _especially_ the ones they're targeting with a system like this. Anyone interested in identity online already has several means of proving they are who they say they are, and can generate X.509 certificates to provide ridiculous-quality proof for individual transactions.

While I fully expect something along these lines to exist eventually, I'm honestly scared by the sunshine-and-ponies descriptions in that document. They're also making _enormous_ claims of universal interoperability that reek to me of XML/SOAP/etc evangelization - it _never_ works that well.

(Link thanks to trotsky: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2086135> )

</comment><comment><USER45> IANAL, but this is technically legal, so long as it's used ONLY for commerce, by means of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

After that, it becomes unconstitutional, far as I know.

So, in other words, it's unconstitutional, because it won't be used only for commerce.

<comment><USER36> Constitution is meaningless these days. "Unconstitutional" is defined by the emotional whims and ideologies of judges.

<comment><USER46> The commerce clause in particular has been used to justify most anything, including laws around production of your own goods because that can function as an _alternative_ to interstate commerce.

But strict constructionism isn't an answer either. We shouldn't only have a right to bear 18th century arms, or let computer files be searched without a warrant merely because they aren't on paper. It's always going to be subjective, applying the law to questions that didn't even exist back when it was written. We have to do it, but we have to be more careful about it than we have.

<comment><USER36> That's why Jesus invented amendments to the constitution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> This is a waste of time. Any good intelligence organization can already gain most or all or probably too much of the information they need from online actions, transactions, networks, posts/comments, protocol sniffing, ISP/ad network data, re-routing/copying traffic, social hacking, infected pcs, etc. And if you are encrypting, proxying, spoofing then you are Anonymous and already on the radar.

This Internet ID would just be a show piece.

<comment><USER36> It's not about access to information, it's about the control to issue/deny IDs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> So far as I can tell what is actually being discussed is an official certification scheme for third-party identity providers. This would make it more feasible for third-party IDs to be accepted in contexts where they're currently not. I don't see how that can be reasonably characterized as a "unique Internet ID for all Americans", but whatevs.

</comment><comment><USER49> This was a minor plot device in the book _Ender's Game_ , where two super- intelligent children needed to borrow their father's network citizen access to post on the forums about their ideas. Obviously this isn't what the administration is suggesting, but it seems like a dangerous first step. I don't like it.

I'm happy with an optional OpenID-like system for stronger authentication and convenient access to account logins, but the system should be 100% optional. There's no way I'm going to trust anyone with the ability to masquerade as me through a closed system. Imagine using Facebook Connect or Google to log in to your bank. Facebook has no business involving me and my bank. It is between me and my bank only. And there is no reason for me to risk my full, unlimited online identity to a single provider like Facebook or Google. The government also has no business knowing who my bank or email provider of choice are.

</comment><comment><USER50> There are so many incentives for legislators to restrict the internet as we know it today and effectively no lobby to protect it. I am wondering if 10 years from now we are going to have much more "regulation and security" for the networks than now. Not only in the US, on the global scale. Who knows, it might be that the 90s-00s will be remembered as the only period in the human history when the truly free unregulated GLOBAL internet was possible.

This view might look naive and hype-provoking and indeed the internet proved to be very robust on the big scale so far. However I have read recently about the very limited visa regulations for travelling around the most of the world in the 19th century. kind of puts things into perspective.

<comment><USER51> The great firewall existed in the 90's and the 2000's right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> And you can absolutely bet that this will be tied to a SSN and will be necessary in order to interact with the government.

In some ways, this is reminiscent of Microsoft's attempt to 'reboot the internet' with their own security code. I believe it was called Hailstorm.

</comment><comment><USER53> I think a government OAuth sounds like a good idea. Verifying your identity based on SSN is pretty insecure. If the commerce department can come up with a secure standard, it can seriously cut down on fraud. Internet anonymity is good for some things, but the government needs to stop people from borrowing in someone else's name.

Security will probably be challenge. This needs to be done right, but it has great potential for cutting down on fraud. With real identity, scammers can blacklisted, and honest can people can transact business better. Despite the FUD, I think this is actually good government.

</comment><comment><USER54> In a few years time, the government will block your access to the internet for not doing as you're told.

As all services become digital eventually, the guy controlling the central ID system will be able to literally let you starve to death.

The fight for internet freedom is really the most important one in human history. If we don't win, we'll end up with a government that can actually enforce ALL its laws ALL the time.

</comment><comment><USER55> You can already sign up for a bank account online and prove you are who you say you are by inputting enough personal information so they can verify you.

Sure there is potential for identity theft but much less so than with what they are proposing now.

As far as single logins, there is already a well established solution with OpenID, OAuth, and the Log in with Facebook / Twitter style logins.

</comment><comment><USER56> Great, another channel for identity theft.

</comment><comment><USER57> Even if it is optional to start with, it's like every other government "security theater" nonsense and there will be mission-creep to make it mandatory sooner or later.

Absolutely no way this should be allowed to be enacted, in any form.

Government should simply enforce the existing spammer laws and ensure net neutrality.

</comment><comment><USER58> Government tends to be inefficient in Internet business. The Government would screw things up in multiple ways: too slow, too expensive, too much corruption, not flexible etc.

</comment><comment><USER59> Is there anything in the legislation forcing businesses & their customers to use this ID for all transactions?

</comment><comment><USER60> One more stake in the heart of liberty.

</comment><comment><USER61> Why is it that people insist on calling US citizens Americans? Canadians, Chileans, Brazilians, Panamanians, Colombians, etc are all Americans also, and this move does not apply to them at all. The American population is composed of everyone this side of the pond and not of everyone to the north only. Journalists should make a distinction.

<comment><USER62> Perhaps because we're the only ones to actually put the work "America" in our country's name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> How long until a national ID turns into an international ID to combat terrorism?

</comment><comment><USER64> Gongradulations fello americans,

your illuminati oligarchs have promoted you, to become ID numbers with unique identity

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY>

</comment><comment><USER65> Mark of the Beast! Mark of the Beast!

</comment><comment><USER66> How the hell am I supposed to keep working under the table and dodging the IRS, if they're able to track me down because I just posted to Hacker News from this IP address?

God, it gives me a cold chill feeling just thinking about it.

</comment><comment><USER67> It seems everybody is opposed to this sort of thing, but I love the idea of having a single piece of ID that works universally. I guess there are issues with identity theft being made easier, but I think the benefits outweigh the "privacy" concerns.</comment>


The Death of Television - <AUTHOR> http://nathanbowers.com/business/the-death-of-television-part-1-in-a-series/

<comment><USER2> The hell with it. I'm posting the clip of talking dogs:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCYaw5tGYAs>

</comment><comment><USER3> Hey, why is pretending to be an elf lousy? World of Warcraft is fun as hell if you have friends to play with.

It sure beats being a verbose Internet windbag who doesn't code.

<comment><USER4> Recall, if you please, that the rhetorical phrase "However X Y may be,..." translates to "I, myself, don't necessarily believe that X is Y, but perhaps you do. So I'm going to pretend to accept your argument that X is Y in order to lure you underneath a ten-ton weight, which I will drop on you immediately after this comma."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> i stopped having a TV in my household around 2000/1. It's great to pursue other activities.</comment>