Imagine if OpenID had you use your URL and a dynamic password and PIN, rather than a normal static password.

The real trouble is going to come in when you have a dozen of these and need to know what goes with which. (And what do you store them in?) Of course, if they’re branded like the Blizzard one, that helps with identification, but for banks, it might be in their best interest not to identify the keyfob quite so obviously. But then you run into the trouble of customers who need that identification, because otherwise they’ll forget what the thing is for.

But then, I really don’t think it’s a good practice to design security software and protocols for the dumbest user out there — truly secure systems are going to require a level of sophistication to use, and in the end, people learn to deal with that. Actual housekeys haven’t always existed, and I’m sure there was a real fuss about it when they started becoming common (”What if I lose it?! Why should I need one of these? Won’t thieves realize my house has valuables in it if I take the trouble to lock it?”), but people dealt.

Of course, we live in a society where people are almost always willing to trade security for convenience. I think part of my “OMG MUST HAVE” of the Blizzard keyfob is because I like the idea of being able to make my own decisions about when to trade security for convenience. This hasn’t been forced on me by anybody, but it’s there if I want it. It’s definitely something I find appealing.

I’m a libertarian; I agree with you that “victimless crimes” should not be crimes. However, a “crime” is not an immoral act, but an illegal one — and these laws do exist, whether we like them or not. My point here is not that these laws are just; they aren’t. My point is that somebody — in fact, most people — think that these laws are a good idea, and passed them on purpose. Even those people, however, do not want to live in the sort of society that will be created if these sorts of laws are enforced universally. We’re able to live in a mostly free society, despite these sorts of busybody-meddling laws, because it’s impractical to enforce them more than a tiny fraction of the time. Universal enforcement through surveillance and automation would horrify the general public, not just libertarian “crackpots” like ourselves, and that’s what’s going to result in real change to the legal system.

It isn’t so much that this particular incidence has been harmful, as that it’s indicative of a larger problem — the tactics that used to be considered the province of hackers and thieves are now being used by “legitimate” companies for ad targeting. You may trust them not to abuse your data, but can you trust everyone they share it with? The more the data is shared, the more likely that someone along the chain of custody will decide to make a quick buck. The opportunity to commit a crime easily and without getting caught breeds crime even in normally honest people.

did anybody really get harmed?
dude!……..no one has said they really use sears website and ever went to site

right?

Secondly, everything you mentioned - speeding, drugs, are NOT CRIMES. A true crime requires a victim. The “laws” you are talking about are simply totalitarian to begin with, and designed to make “criminals” of everyone, so that government officials can make everyone afraid.

Surveillance will ultimately work best for the side that has POWER and can enforce things at the point of a gun. Never forget it.