Of course not, but here's a concern that the very enthusiastic proponents of this (and other) schemes don't seem to worry about.
So, if i register as Bill Gates on OpenID, post a blog with a picture I scraped from Wikipedia, and then start blogging on how much I love BSD and how I was forced to work at Microsoft all those years by aliens...then users of your system could detect that this is phony, and really NOT bill gates?
I now control billgates.pip.verisignlabs.com. I opened an account on LiveJournal. Now, I can post whatever I want and as long as the users don't explicitly apply a healthy amount of scrutiny, what's to stop me from influencing world events? And how often do the consumers of mass media scrutinize what they're reading?
So, here comes a very reasonable, and laudable project - OpenID - that wishes to make it "easier" to trust id through Diffe-Hellman shared secrets. Interesting? Yes. Open and therefore fully trustworthy? NO!
People trust authority. People want to trust governments and companies. They can't, but they want to. People trust what people see other people doing. Therefore, if OpenID is successful, and governments and companies do rely on them, then abuse of this scheme could cause trouble via mistaken or deliberately stolen urls/ids/etc:
* lost Jobs
* lost business
* lost credibility
Employers are now searching candidates on Google and blogs. Imagine "John Smith"...what if there are 5 of them in your town? What if one of them is a Neo-Nazi? What if the employer HR person doesn't have 30 minutes per candidate to scrutinize all these blogs and verify true human identity? What if their HR system AUTOMATICALLY trusts OpenIDs!!
Paranoia? Of course. Should be be concerned? I think so. Is it better than what's out there? Probably, but I reserve judgment.
Kim Cameron has a concise, brilliant synopsis of a valid and useable id system:
"Whatever it is, a real identity system needs us to do a lot better. In particular, the identity system must extend to and integrate the human user.
The Law of Human Integration
The universal identity system MUST define the human user to be a component of the distributed system, integrated through unambiguous human-machine communications mechanisms offering protection against identity attacks.
One of the people who has thought long and hard about these issues is Carl Ellison. He has coined the term Ceremony for interactions that span a mixed network of human and cybernetic system components. Carl worked on this idea when he was at Intel and I interview him about his work here." -- KC's blog