This morning is the morning of big hitters for those of us in the identity world and we start with Kim Cameron, who starts by defining the word 'kludge' and saying it is an ideal way to describe the world of digital identity. We have created an identity system online that is fundamentally difficult to understand for any user - so we can't really complain when users fail to engage.
Cameron is of course the author of the 'laws of identity'. His simple conclusion is that if users will not use the end product the product will fail. This may sound obvious, but the complexity of most software designed to protect users can be described in that way.
It may be strange, but there really is someone from microsoft on stage talking about the need for pluralism of providers. Cameron says that no one organisation can control identity, it is important that multiple organisations are involved to allow users to have contextual separation of their identity.
We often have no idea what identity information we are spilling out. Cameron describes the way in which out bluetooth address can be used and tracked in conferences, in shopping centres and at events to build a profile. Google were recently 'in trouble' for collecting wifi data via their street view cars - this caused a furore but may become the norm in the UK as a result of the Digital Economy Act.
Cameron goes on to describe what he calls the 'claims based model' and what we in the federation world call minimal disclosure of attributes. An obvious response, but in a world where we literally spill identity information out without thinking about it the minimal disclosure point is important. It is important that providers buy in to this and take responsiblity. This is the 'need to know' internet.
So what does all this mean to those of us involved in education and research federations? Lucky for me Ingrid Melve has done a great job of writing this up. Do read her blog piece.
Monday, 31 May 2010
Putting a sensible head on the cloud
How do we develop a new concept of datacenter to really change the way we use the cloud? Anthony Joseph has a view that 1 person should be able to develop, deploy and operate a next generation internet application. Some of the processes that are being looked at are predicting demand, automatically adding / dropping servers to meet demand and creating tools such as a 'decision tree' to replace log messages to make life easier. Using these tools, a single administrator can manage tens of thousands of machines. This is about a
applicabilty at a very large scale.
Joseph next focuses on the fact the utility computing has arrived - any of us can use Amazon cloud services - the entry barriers are very very low. If a computer sits running without space being used, it is lost revenue. So capacity can be offered at cheap prices to ensure maximum usage.
Services like Animoto were launched on the back of Amazon services. The main benefit was managing the peak of user traffic when Animoto suddenly went viral - soemthing the Poken people could learn from following today's #tnc2010 user crash ;-)
For Anthony, Cloud Computing is both software as service and utility computing. Cloud computing must provide at least the illusion of infinite computing resources available for download. the elimination of an upfront commitment by cloud users and the ability to pay for use of resources on a short-term basis as needed. These three elements need to work together to meet the demand.
Economics for Clous Computing is important. When offering this type of service, understanding capacity and understanding cost are going to be very important. Underprovisioning needs to be managed. It costs the same to use 1000 computers for 1 hour as it does to use 1 computer for 1000 hours. Time demanding jobs need cloud comuting.
There are challenges - openAPIs are more competitors are required for this space to really take off. Software licences that meet this dynamic are also needed - pay as you go licences are being developed and rolled out.
All in all a very positive and practical approach to really using the cloud.
applicabilty at a very large scale.
Joseph next focuses on the fact the utility computing has arrived - any of us can use Amazon cloud services - the entry barriers are very very low. If a computer sits running without space being used, it is lost revenue. So capacity can be offered at cheap prices to ensure maximum usage.
Services like Animoto were launched on the back of Amazon services. The main benefit was managing the peak of user traffic when Animoto suddenly went viral - soemthing the Poken people could learn from following today's #tnc2010 user crash ;-)
For Anthony, Cloud Computing is both software as service and utility computing. Cloud computing must provide at least the illusion of infinite computing resources available for download. the elimination of an upfront commitment by cloud users and the ability to pay for use of resources on a short-term basis as needed. These three elements need to work together to meet the demand.
Economics for Clous Computing is important. When offering this type of service, understanding capacity and understanding cost are going to be very important. Underprovisioning needs to be managed. It costs the same to use 1000 computers for 1 hour as it does to use 1 computer for 1000 hours. Time demanding jobs need cloud comuting.
There are challenges - openAPIs are more competitors are required for this space to really take off. Software licences that meet this dynamic are also needed - pay as you go licences are being developed and rolled out.
All in all a very positive and practical approach to really using the cloud.
Do we need to secure our future?
Email is not the forefront of technology, and of no apparent use to the community of users that are currently growing up. So says Hannes Lubich at the opening plenary of #tnc2010. Students are simply not worried about losing control of personal data – but do they really understand the impact of reputation within the social networking world, and beyond?
Privacy is clearly going to be a strong theme at this year’s TNC (Terena Networking Conference) but it is refreshing to see a techie conference start with a keynote talking about users, talking about students and talking about behaviours.
Lubich points out that the older generation are often in charge of security, and tend to default to a position of banning rather than seizing the opportunity. Do we need to push our boundaries or should we just allow ourselves to benefit from the younger generation?
At the conference we are being encouraged to shake hands using a ‘poken’, which stores our personal data and shares it with others. Essentially, we are being asked to actively share our personal data with the Terena community and with Terena itself. How comfortable are people in the room with us? What is the risk appetite in the room?
Lubich’s colleagues have be known to work in to a classroom with a book and announce to students ‘this is a book, you may have seen one on television.’ The only reason that any of this should scare us is that we are not in control of the spaces in which people are collaborating. We can’t control the security of Facebook, or a student’s blog.
There are obviously fluffy boundaries between public and private, personal and political / professional. I'd argue that this isn't perhaps the problem that it is being presented as in the conference - these blurred boundaries have always existed. We just haven't workout out how to manage these boundaries using new tech - just like we had to learn how to convey tone and attitude in email and the dangers of flaming.
We are so focused on debating the threats of these new environments that we are not focusing on the opportunities, says Lubich. I think this is true. However I think his focus on students and student processes are not a clear representation of how behaviour is taken forward. Lubich asked people in the room how many had two mobile phones, and dismissed this as 'outmoded' - i'd argue that this reflects that fact that students are not managing the duality of work and home.
One of the problems with social networking sites is that we tend to look for the negatives and not the positives. It is more likely that a recruiter would be looking for embarassing drunken photo of you on Facebook than a positive addition to your skills set and healthy hobbies. See BBC's The Wall for examples of this.
Lubich ends by asking how can we use GenY's creative potentinal without giving up control? I'd argue that may be it is instead time to stop trying to control, and get on with managing the consequences. Shall we put the paranoia behind us?
Privacy is clearly going to be a strong theme at this year’s TNC (Terena Networking Conference) but it is refreshing to see a techie conference start with a keynote talking about users, talking about students and talking about behaviours.
Lubich points out that the older generation are often in charge of security, and tend to default to a position of banning rather than seizing the opportunity. Do we need to push our boundaries or should we just allow ourselves to benefit from the younger generation?
At the conference we are being encouraged to shake hands using a ‘poken’, which stores our personal data and shares it with others. Essentially, we are being asked to actively share our personal data with the Terena community and with Terena itself. How comfortable are people in the room with us? What is the risk appetite in the room?
Lubich’s colleagues have be known to work in to a classroom with a book and announce to students ‘this is a book, you may have seen one on television.’ The only reason that any of this should scare us is that we are not in control of the spaces in which people are collaborating. We can’t control the security of Facebook, or a student’s blog.
There are obviously fluffy boundaries between public and private, personal and political / professional. I'd argue that this isn't perhaps the problem that it is being presented as in the conference - these blurred boundaries have always existed. We just haven't workout out how to manage these boundaries using new tech - just like we had to learn how to convey tone and attitude in email and the dangers of flaming.
We are so focused on debating the threats of these new environments that we are not focusing on the opportunities, says Lubich. I think this is true. However I think his focus on students and student processes are not a clear representation of how behaviour is taken forward. Lubich asked people in the room how many had two mobile phones, and dismissed this as 'outmoded' - i'd argue that this reflects that fact that students are not managing the duality of work and home.
One of the problems with social networking sites is that we tend to look for the negatives and not the positives. It is more likely that a recruiter would be looking for embarassing drunken photo of you on Facebook than a positive addition to your skills set and healthy hobbies. See BBC's The Wall for examples of this.
Lubich ends by asking how can we use GenY's creative potentinal without giving up control? I'd argue that may be it is instead time to stop trying to control, and get on with managing the consequences. Shall we put the paranoia behind us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)