Providing authentication for web services doesn't mean control of the internet. Passport is an optional service at the disposal of websites. It is not required for any portion of .NET or anything else. Microsoft uses it on their sites because it provides a testbed and proof of concept for the technology. It also provides easy, uniform authentication for whatever services the site may offer.
The next version of Passport will be a federated system, providing interoperability with other entities' initiatives (if the others ever produce a product). Single sign-on and user persistence will aid in the anytime, any place, and on any device goals of .NET as far as allowing the user to easily transfer their credentials from one device to another (e. .g., from desktop computer to cell phone), or in allowing the user to easily provide others with certain information at their discretion, but it isn't absolutely necessary to use it. It does ease the situation of identification and user persistence for software developers and the end-user, though.
With all of that said, however, it is up to whomever runs a particular website/web service whether or not to implement Passport or some other similar service. It in no way wrests control of the internet away from everyone into the hands of one entity. There is always the choice of avoiding any place that uses Passport if the service is that much of a problem. But, as with anything, it comes down to whether the thing you want is worth making some concessions to get. If a service provider has a tempting offering, do the benefits of that offering to you outweigh any factors involved in obtaining that offering?
|