Web-universal account, good idea?

[BronyPony 575]

So, a web-universal account would be an account where that account would work on all websites. For every website that involves an account system, your account would work there. Currently, all websites have an account system that relies on its own database and such.

 

My question is do you think it is a good idea to have a web-universal account type system, where you register an account once and it works on all websites that exist? This is merely a hypothetical question, obviously.

 

If you point out a problem that is easily solvable then point it out in the topic and I can see if I or someone can solve the problem.

[boiteporte 591]

Well; no, I don't think it would be a good idea for the reason pointed in the second choice in the poll.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

I see several issues with having a universal account, number one being a huge security issue. Now instead of stealing 5-12 passwords, you only have to compromise one and you have access to the entire web history, forum accounts, and social media of that person. Which makes not only cyber defaming far easier, but also allows identity thieves ease of access into a persons internet life, and possibly their bank accounts. I know alot of people use the same password and email for most accounts, but most of the time they are not fully linked together like one super account would be.

 

   Not to mention it now makes it 200% easier for the NSA to track and follow you, and allows them to build that profile that much easier.

Edited July 25, 2014 by M'aiq the Liar

[Luna 831 466]

Im sorry but no they hack your comprised and if the nsa gets hold of it they track all your moves.

[ReGen 1,466]

Didn't Google try doing that? And fail? I don't know who uses Google+ other than to login to Youtube. 

 

And yeah, it would not be a good idea. Huge security risk. And what if you forgot the password? You wouldn't be able to get to your email to reactivate it because it was under the account you forgot the password to!

[Jeric 46,851]

User Security, loss an anonymity, loss of site ownership control of secritity leading to liability confusion, fragmentation of identity questions with SP's and Corporations, and while I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just don't trust a system like this.

 

I think that is enough reasons

Edited July 25, 2014 by Jeric

[ThePurpleK 71]

So, a web-universal account would be an account where that account would work on all websites. For every website that involves an account system, your account would work there. Currently, all websites have an account system that relies on its own database and such.

 

My question is do you think it is a good idea to have a web-universal account type system, where you register an account once and it works on all websites that exist? This is merely a hypothetical question, obviously.

 

If you point out a problem that is easily solvable then point it out in the topic and I can see if I or someone can solve the problem.

This already somewhat exists. It's called OAuth. With the OAuth protocol, we can utilise existing authentication services (such as Google accounts and Poniverse accounts) in order for authentication to depend on their servers rather than yours. The disadvantage is that if your account is compromised, then your presence on all sites is compromised. This is a bad idea for the hypothetical idea of having it for the whole web.

Back to 'somewhat exists', seeing as Google's servers are very secure, if you use two-factor authentication with them, then the risks of being compromised are next to zero. 

[Digit 321]

That would be like having thebsame password forbeveryvsite and that is already something that sites tell you not to do. So i think it would end up causing a lot of security issues.