Talk:Digital identity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jaco,
Regarding "having a digital identity": surely an entity's *possession* of a digital identity without that identity being *attributed* to the entity is in effect meaningless? In this sense, identity is an entirely subjective, multiplicitous set of properties, not a unitary "thing" that can be possessed...
Scott Lemon is interesting on this stuff: http://www.freeid.org/2005/04/01.html#a570
"I believe that identity is given to us by communities that we belong to."
Luke
Luke,
Agree with your *attributed* idea.
And it goes well with Scott remarks because, for example, if needed people who receive funds & resources, can have as a fundamental right, that the community of *givers* can include them in "their community",(*) then this people will receive much more funds and resources.
Details in www.vitualrights.org/justicia social.pdf (spanish) and the big idea is also represented here: http://www.virtualrights.org/project_overview_latest.pdf (english)
The main idea behind the mentioned fundamental right(**) is that society is being managed by ICT, and a Virtual Entity can offer more abilities to every individual person who wants it.
(*) And receive the help directly to their Virtual Entity, which includes, or is able to manage an internet accesible Bank account, and Trust Fund. (**) www.virtualrights.org
Jaco
What might an identity entity be?
If someone has a clear, clean, and concise idea, they might edit the section, Networked identity, of the Wikipedia page, Digitial identity, rewriting it so that it does not use the term, 'identity entity,' but instead uses a short phrase with the same meaning.
[edit] Elide?
- "In order to attribute a digital representation to an entity, and so to elide the two as a digital subject, the attributing party (the observer) must trust that the representation does indeed pertain to the entity (see Authentication below)."
I think the author meant something like 'combine' or 'conflate', but certainly not 'elide'. Could someone discern the correct fix? Shenme 17:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revise
I believe that this article needs serious editing. For example, the first section "digital subject" places at the same levels human beings and things... There is a certainly a huge difference between "being identifiable" and "having an identity" or even "constructing one's identity." The identity of a person can't be subsumed in a set of attributes.
IMO an article on "digital identity" should construct on the underpinning foundations of "identity" and not start from a reified version of individuals being described in terms of attributes. The concept of "digital identity" should be critically looked in the perspective of what philosophers, linguists, educators, logicians etc. have said on this issue. For example, if we are to follow Locke that "personal identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but... in the identity of consciousness", then we should definitively review this article ("attributes" are about the "identity of the substance", not the identity of the consciousness).
The next section "Identity through relationship" looks at identity as something external to the owner of the identity, the result of an observation by an external entity ("An observer's perception of the digital identity") and do not take into account the most important observer: oneself, as reflective self, constructing his/her identity.
My suggestion for a full rewrite of the article would be:
1) treat independently artifacts (that can be identified) with those creating artifacts (that have a proper identity)
2) start from what has been said on identity by recognised authorities such as philosophers, linguists, psychologists, educators (learning is about the construction of one's identity), etc.
3) find authoritative sources linking the construction & exploitation of identity with digital technologies looking at what are the challenges and opportunities. How digital technology does alter / expand / transform the construction and exploitation of one's identity.
I might not be the most qualified person for doing the job, but I would be willing to join in this task.
- Serge 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
