EP 1 499 940 B1 2  1 Description TECHNICAL FIELD [0001] The present invention is related to a method and system for providing an identity-related information about a person to a requesting entity. Moreover, the in- vention isrelatedtoamethodfor transferring the identity- related information hosted on a location entity, also re- ferred to as wallet, to the requesting entity. [0002] Identitymanagementinits widestsense means management of all the personal information about a per- son, including at least all the person’s digital relations. Over the next decade, identity management systems in this wide sense are likely to evolve. Short-term, identity management is typically said for web single sign- on with the transfer of a small amount of data about a person. [0003] The main business case is a general boost of electronic business: Identity management is an infra- structure issue where a standard, like the Internet and web standards, may benefit almost all parties. [0004] Single sign-on enables a person or user to log in to different organizations while remembering only one password without allowingall the organizations toimper- sonatethe person towardseach other assimply asusing the same password directly with all organizations would. [0005] Recently, identity management, in particular single sign-on, are known, for example, by the Liberty Alliance (URL: http://www.projectliberty.org) or byMicro- soft  Corporation’s  Passport  system  (URL: //www.passport.com). The so-called Passport system or short Passport of Microsoft Corporation is a web service operated exclusivelybyMicrosoft Corporation thatallows users to sign in to web sites and conduct e- commerce transactions. Lessexclusive operationshave been prom- ised, but not revealed. Passport currently includes an authentication service,a specialized authenticationserv- ice just for kids, and an express purchase service. [0006] Older system types related to identity manage- ment are classical single sign- on products, public-key infrastructures, and form fillers. [0007] However, none of known products and propos- als can, in the interoperable way needed for a global in- formation societyand general electronic businessinpar- ticular, adapt to all the different requirements that the various participants in this information society and elec- tronic business have. Particularly, all prior products and proposals fail tofulfillatleastoneofthe following require- ments, as explained below in more detail: 1. Suitability for a free choice of location entities that hold identity-related information about a person, in- cluding location entities under the respective user’s own physical control, so- called local wallets, and in- cluding that multiple location entities hold informa- 5. Flexible privacy policies for the release of identity related information. 4. Suitability for users that want to remain anony- mous, while still allowingthe transfer ofsomeidentity related information, such as preferences or demo- graphic information. 3. Suitability for the transfer of both authentication information and other identity-related information, where the latter may be both freely chosen by the user, such as preferences, or in need of third-party confirmation. 2. Suitabilityfor browser- onlyclients and even users that access the system via varying browsers, while not making itnecessaryfor themto do all their brows- ing through a location entity in a proxy role, which would enable the location entity to see all the user’s message contents. Clearly the browser-only users and those with local wallets are not the same -- the requirement is that the server’s method interoper- ates with both. tion of one person. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 2 : [0008] It may be helpful to discuss the benefits of an identity management system fulfilling these require- ments, hereafter abbreviated as Req.: Req. 1 is made by companies like employers and banks who want to act as location entities for their employees or customers at least in relationships relatedto their business.Moreover, whether persons will embrace identity management vol- untarily nowisnot asclear as one might beled to believe. Currently, the fear of "putting all eggs in one basket" and privacy and trust concerns outweigh the perceived ben- efit of both single sign-on and simplified form filling for most people. Here again, free choice as in Req. 1 may help, in particular to allow the "local" location entities for the user’s truly personal information. These latter con- cerns also motivate Req. 4. Req. 2 is made for practical- ity, both because many users cannot be made to install additional software and because some users use the in- formation society infrastructure from varying Internet ki- osks and the like. The Internet kiosk is contemplated as a public computer, e.g., in an Internet cafe. Req. 3 is for general applicability and user friendliness, e.g., to allow, with just one system, the restriction of access to certain information and certain operations only to certain users, and also the transfer of addresses, shipping information etc. to business partners. The benefit of the last part of Req. 3 and Req. 5 can be seen as follows: Transferring a small amount of data aims at standard e- commerce applications, where data like shipping and billing infor- mation are needed often and quite independent of the communication partner. In extensions to more specific data such as book and travel preferences, one will have to distinguishthe partners better. Long- termcomprehen- sive solutions will include data that need third-party con- firmation; they will also manage transaction data, e.g., the person’s receipts obtained from these partners; and they will integrate with other personal applications, such