<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">In discussions I have had with Mobile operators privacy has been a concern, though that may be influenced by many of them being in Europe and having to conform to much stricter privacy laws than in the US.<div><br></div><div>The connect profile is intended to create a common set of features and possibly a single registration point to make it possible for RP to deal with potentially 800 IdP given that the internet is global.</div><div><br></div><div>I think many people will agree that creating a common identity layer rather than regional ones is a good thing.</div><div><br></div><div>Asking about persona on the device may have confused the issue. It would surprise me if multiple persona including non corralatable ones are not supported for asserting to RP.</div><div><br></div><div>That is different from multiple persona on the device being used for authentication to the MNO as the IdP. </div><div><br></div><div>In developing the profile support for pairwise identifiers will need to be sorted out. They have privacy benefits as long as you are not handing out other corralatable attributes.</div><div><br></div><div>One value add the MNO have is that they can provide proofed attributes with the users consent. In the multiple persona case there may be legal restrictions on them providing attributes they know are not true. So outside of the technical profile that we are developing there may be policy issues that the operators need to deal with.</div><div><br></div><div>One side benefit of this is if the we get RP into the ecosystem this way and can move them to a world where they have to allow selection between hundreds of IdP then the NASCAR breaks down and there is more opportunity for specialist IdP like <a href="http://unitedid.org">UnitedID</a> to be accepted.</div><div><br></div><div>John B.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Mar 20, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Removing: <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a> and <a href="mailto:board-ec@openid.net">board-ec@openid.net</a> from the Cc list and adding openid-general since this is more of a community question and not the board discussion. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-03-21 7:31 GMT+09:00 Kaliya Identity Woman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:identitywoman@gmail.com" target="_blank">identitywoman@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I asked Don last time we were in person if the GSMA in its use/adoption of OpenID was going to enable people to easily have more then one profile on their device. He basically said they hadn't thought of it and in effect said "nope". </blockquote>
</div><br>Actually, this is not true. Many telcos are perfectly willing to give ability to the consumers multiple "identities". </div><div class="gmail_extra">The credential being SIM based and the support of multiple "identity/partial identity/paersona" is an orthogonal thing. <br>
<div>Perhaps Torsten can chime in here as well. </div><div><br></div>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<div>Chairman, OpenID Foundation<br><a href="http://nat.sakimura.org/" target="_blank">http://nat.sakimura.org/</a><br>@_nat_en</div>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>general mailing list<br><a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net">general@lists.openid.net</a><br>http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>