Aspherical Boundaries

Like most Internet users, I am plagued by the Multiple Sign On problem. I’ve got a username/password pair for GMail, Facebook, eBay, PayPal, my blog, my Coppermine gallery etc, etc. Trying to manage all these is always a bit of a handful, especially for those I don’t use often. Most sites makes it a bit easier nowadays by using an email address as your user name, but it is still a bit of a pain in the ass.

Most of the big names on the Internet has been trying to unify the logins for their services for the past while, as long as you stick to one brand, it works. For example, a Google Account covers you for GMail, Google Docs, Picasa, Blogger, Youtube and many others. Similarly, your Microsoft Live account covers you for MSDN, SkyDrive, XBox Live! etc. etc.

Howevery, you are still tied to one company for each login.

It was a pleasant surprise when I came upon Stackoverflow a while back. It is a batch of new websites using the OpenID system for logging in.

OpenID has been around for a while now. It is, unsurprisingly, an open standard for various sites to supply your login information, and thus online identity to each other, done with your consent of course. This means that once you are logged into site A, instead of logging into sites B, C and D, you can simply ask them to check with site A with regards to your identity. This is definately a move in the right direction toward the Single Sign On.

A side effect of more wide spread Single Sign On would be that it discourages internet anononimity. If people are using the same identity on multiple sites, they are more invested in that identity. This may be a good thing or a bad thing. However, I do think this will close the gap between acceptable behaviour in real life and online. That means less trolling and better YouTube comments! (Ok, I can dream).

In fact, a surprising number of sites already offer OpenID, including AOL, Microsoft, MySpace, Yahoo and most recently, Google. Chances are, you already have one OpenID… or five. In fact, this poses a problem as most of the big names are happy to supply you with an OpenID, but does not want to accept it, or be the “Relying party” as the lingo goes. This means you are still sitting with a handful (instead of a bucketful) of accounts. Furthermore, the fact that you already have so many OpenIDs is itself a problem, as there is no way to merge two IDs.

Google and Facebook have also introduced their own take on the Single Sign On problem. Google Friend Connet and Facebook Connect are services offered by two of internet’s biggest brands to users to use their logins all over the internet. In one sense, this means that Google and Facebook want to become the identity brokers for the internet.

This is one area when you don’t really want too many choices. The network effect is very real here. What we want is a handful of logins that potentially covers everything. (Note that I say potentially because you should still have the option of having unconnected accounts for privacy reasons). The situation will only get better when the big names start accepting each other’s logins. We want to arrive at a situation where your Google login is your Yahoo login.

The current state of affairs means that it’s a lot easier to post on werid forums you come acros without having to register a new account, but you still need a few “Big” accounts.

Update:

I just sorted out OpenID for Aspherical Boundaries… Looks like I was really late to the party :P.

In the last few days, there was a big hoo-haover Facebook’s privacy. Long story short, one of its new revenue generating components is called Beacon. It places ads on Facebook, and if you follow the link to the store site and purchase something, Facebook gets a referral fee. Nothing new there. However, there is an additional feedback in that the store reports back to Facebook what you bought. This is then displayed as part of your newsfeed. As a result, when your friends log in, they can see what you bought.

Now, this caused problems in two major ways: First one is easy: people buying stuff they are a bit embarrassed about (*coughporncough*). Secondly, surprise Christmas presents are disclosed.

It turns out that this feature is supposed to function as something Facebook would like to call “trusted referral”, which makes sense in the context that if you are in the market for something, you can see what your friends bought and use that as a guide for your decision. As most things on Facebook, it could be turned off. However, it was left on by default, which is what actually upset people. Now it’s been left off be default.

Ok. This is now. I don’t think it’s significant. However, why did I write that things have changed?

I followed this link off the news article, to a similar article just over a year ago. This older article shares a mould with the newer one. Privacy concern. Newsfeed. On by default. Introduced an “off” option. People happy.

The amazing thing is the reason for the protest (quote from the page):

The backlash came over Facebook’s decision Tuesday to deliver automated, customized alerts about a user’s closest friends, classmates and colleagues. Users who log on might instantly find out that someone they know has joined a new social group, posted more photos or begun dating their best friend.

I joined Facebook shortly after that episode. The fact that all these information, by default, are delivered to all my “Facebook friends” is something I’ve taken for granted. I am used to the lack of privacy on Facebook, and acts accordingly. What caused an outrage just a year ago is the norm now.

It’s incredible how Facebook has opened up many people’s lives to the public view, and how people have grown used to it. More than not, it’s open knowledge who knows who and how they relate to each other. If you want to know where someone is going to be on a given evening, checking the Events calendar will give you a pretty good idea.

The biggest one is the “relationship” field. Any changes to it is sure to attract attention. Changing it to “It’s complicated” is to cause a scandal. New relationships and breakups are closely followed by Facebook updates.  One of my friends made public his engagement on Facebook before making phone calls or writing emails.

Personally, I find this a bit sad, as it devalues a lot of inter-personal communication. For lots of trivial things, (like which parties you are attending), it’s fine. But as petty as it sounds, I do value it when friends go to the effort to let me know what’s going on in their lives before making it public. Facebook is just so… impersonal.

To close off, I’m not blaming Facebook itself. I like Facebook. It’s useful. I do think, however, that people might benefit from taking some time to consider how to integrate means of communication, old and new, instead of doing everything via newsfeeds.