Notice that BT seems to have taken a lot of flack over its test of Phorm , which matches adverts to users’ web habits. Advertisers will probably argue that examples of such tools allow them to offer better aligned services to their prospective customers – users may well wonder where the line is drawn regarding the gathering of data about their online habits.

In the UK Federation, the line is already firmly drawn. Any user accessing resources is identified to that publisher by a random string. It’s a different generated random string for the user accessing each publisher so there can be no danger of deductive matching up of identities.

That element of protection may not seem a big deal at the moment but protection and ownership of one’s online identity will be the big issue over the next year – all sectors will no doubt come under intense scrutiny, particularly as individuals will become much more aware and savvy of the issues and principles involved. Obviously the commercial sector will bear the brunt of such examination, but UK education will receive its fair share of attention eventually. Fortunately, the move to federated access management sets up a sound basis for the protection of learners identities online, while allowing scope for the degrees and types of personalisation that publishers and users want. Users (nominally institutions) determine how much info (in attributes) to release, resource providers determine how much info they require. The worst that can happen, is that nothing happens. No unpermitted exchange of data. But unpermitted does need a little unpacking. Institutions really do need to make learners aware of their information policies. Its probably not the first question on most fresher’s lips yet, but one day…………..

Noticed Eduserv are funding FE / HE to explore an “examination of establishing an online identity in a particular community”. Thats good news as it complements the work JISC is doing on its own Identity project, and also highlights how social networking tools are impacting how we perceive identity. The blurring of traditional identity managemnet is also all the more reason why HE / FE institutions should adopt improved control over management of their own students identities, which of course, technologies such as Shibboleth allow. For those on the “do nothing” side of the access management fence, its worth looking at what a burning issue identity is becoming among students, who may well become aware of it through social networking, but will easily make the species / system leap and perhaps put under the microscope their own identity relationship with their host institutions.

With apologies to Edmond Burke, Such a warning reminds me that “all it takes for confusion to flourish is for librarians to do nothing”

Mark writes:
Second part of our Institutional Support process, for Universities and Colleges seeking support to help set them up as IdPs, went out today. We know its not going to be a magic bullet to cure all issues that Institutions are having but like the best DNA treatments these days, it is tightly targetted. Traditionally, we (JISC) have been very good at getting historically early adopter institutions to, and you’ve guessed it - “early adopt”. The support model we are trying here goes beyond that. I sense (and please contact me if I’m wrong) that alot of FE institutions are fence sitting regards Access Management. Hopefully the institutions that get help through JIAMSP will really highlight the fact that Federated Access Mangement is both obtainable and desirable for all - and worth coming down off the fence for. We also know how small the window of opportunity is to get large scale IT projects done within the College academic calender, so another part of the support is an attempt to target by time - Institutions can choose slots as to when they would like to move forward, if they are applying for support. Questions (and with this kind of support modal, there really should be some) please.

Mark writes:

JISC has just issued an ITT for third parties experienced in access management to bid to provide support to institutions who want to deploy a IdP. You might say that such support is already there, and to a degree much of it is. Particulary if you are an Institution employing an IT staff with the correct skill set, have an organised directory service, a significant subscription to JISC Collections resources and the strategic ambition to move forward on access management. However, and it is a big HOWEVER, its clear that there are enough institutions who can use the business case toolkit to determine that they want access management (and I mean the 100% proof type, not devolved outsourcing to a delegated authority), but who have also determined that its currently financially / technically out of reach. It is that group of institutions, which the successfull respondent to the ITT will be working with. The time will come for such institutions to submit applications for the help that the project will provide, but for the present - if you are a third party provider of access management support, with a desire to spend long hours setting up IdPs in grateful institutions all over the country - we want YOUR interest. And remember we encourage questions……

We all know the trick to getting the best fastest piece of IT kit for your buck. -Locating the speed bottle neck. Its no use buying a hyper fast graphics card, if the speed of onboard memory is too slow, or having a fast shooting Digital SLR Camera if the compact flash card has a slow write speed. Well its the same with access management. So much of what we do in improving access to content depends on every link in the chain. One element which we tend to look at least (maybe because it doesn’t have a technical standard linked to it?) is licensing.

24/7, remote, finely grained access to content only happens when the license permits it too.

Lets not forget we need 21st century licenses for 21st century technology.

Tags: jisc-serv-am-briefing

While at the Janet UK Federation briefing event yesterday, someone sitting next to me asked me if I was a content supplier. Working in HE, that doesn’t happen to me very often – turned out it was all because of my laptop. I had a reasonably flash one, so I must be in commerce not education…… Moral of the story – sadly, all too often Librarians seem to be towards the bottom of the food chain when it comes to getting shiny toys. It’s important because it can be the shiny toys that inspire us to be ambitious in how we use IT. Could a particular institutions reluctance to adopt sophisticated access management be routed in a child-hood laptop deprivation of never having seen a dual core processor in action?

While on the topic of righting misconceptions, I’ve noticed the odd supplier using the JISC HE / FE banding as their pricing structure. Nothing wrong in that, however, care needs to be taken too not imply the pricing structure of a particular product is set by JISC- suppliers are welcome to use the structure, but it shouldn’t be implied that use of the structure means defacto JISC endorsement.

Just watched the Australian Federation (Introduction to AAF federated access management) remake of the JISC Introduction to Federated Access Management animation.

Glad to say that it seemed more like a shot by shot remake, in the same way that Gus Van Sant remade Psycho, rather than the “re-envisioning” of Planet of the Apes that Tim Burton did.

There is a serious point though, a major rational for Federating around the SAML standard – is interoperability. The Oz remake (the country, not one featuring CGI flying monkeys), proves that we face similar problems and that we would seem to be on the right track with similar solutions.

Certainly makes the sentence, “an international standard”, far more meaningful….