Sunday, December 02, 2007

Federated unauthorization

We have designated no-screen days on which the kids are forbidden from any activity involving looking at a screen, e.g. TV, computer, PSP, etc (homework & music-players exempted).

My neighbours, the kids of which my kids play with, use a different system - their kids can earn screen time through compensatory good deeds (e.g. homework,chores, etc).

Different authorization schemes between interacting policy domains.

And there is the rub, both sets of kids are constantly back and forth between the households, knowing full well that the two sets of parents have been unable to agree on authorization policy and are consequently ripe for the screen-time picking.

Me to neighbour kid: Hey, are you allowed screen time?
Neighbour kid (with straight face): Oh yes.
Me to neighbour kid: Well I guess so ....

I suppose audit could help prevent the abuse. But, busy life etc.

I'm thinking of adopting a system in which, every time my kids went over to the neighbours, and vice versa, there was pinned to their shirt a note (signed & sealed) listing what they were NOT allowed to do.

<Forbidden action="TV"/>
<Forbidden action="pre-dinner snacks"/>
<Forbidden action="criticizing their Father's rules"/>

Federated unauthorization.

And yes, XACML.


1 comment:

Rajiv said...

Love the simple analogy! Most parents would relate to it whether they could spell SAML or XACML.

How do you propose to address the need for a common vocabulary -- "snacks" (are carrots included?), "pre-meal" (does that end at 5:30pm or 6pm?), even "TV" (does that include YouTube shows on the video ipod?), etc.?