WO 03/091861 PCT/IB03/01172 However, none of known products and proposals can, in the interoperable way needed for a global information society and general electronic business in particular, adapt to all the different requirements that the various participants in this information society dnd electronic business have. Particularly, all prior products and proposals fail to fulfill at least one of the following requirements, as explained below in more detail: It may be helpful to discuss the benefits of an identity management system fulfilling these requirements, 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 related to their business. Moreover, whether persons will embrace identity management voluntarily now is not as clear as one might be led to believe. Currently, the fear of “putting all eggs in one basket” and privacy and trust concerns outweigh the perceived benefit of both single sign-on and simplified form filling for most people. Here again, free choice as in Req. | may help, in particular to allow the  "local " location entities for the user's truly personal information. These latter concerns also motivate Req. 4. Req. 2 is made for practicality, both because many users cannot be made to install additional software and because some users use the information society infrastructure from varying Internet kiosks 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 c-“~*- ~~~  " s only to certain 1. Suitability for a free choice of location entities that hold identity-related information about a person, including location entities under the respective user's own physical control, so-called local wallets, and including that multiple location entities hold info : person. 2. Suitability for browser-only clients and ev: ying browsers, while not making it necessary for them to rough 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 interoperates with both. 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. 4. Suitability for users that want to remain anonymous, while still allowing the transfer of some identity related information, such as preferences or demographic information. 5. Flexible privacy policies for the release of identity related information.