Instead of “auth”, we should say “permissions” and “login” (ntietz.com)

Article summary

The article argues that the term 'auth' is ambiguous and can refer to either authentication or authorization, leading to confusion and bad abstractions. It suggests using 'login' for authentication and 'permissions' for authorization instead. The author claims that these terms are clearer and more distinct, and can help avoid conflating the two concepts. This change can lead to better design choices and fewer misunderstandings.

Main themes

• Authentication vs Authorization
• Terminology Clarity
• Security Concepts
• Identity and Access Management
• Technical Jargon

What commenters say

• Using 'login' and 'permissions' instead of 'auth' can improve clarity and reduce confusion in discussions about authentication and authorization.
• The industry-standard terms 'AuthN' and 'AuthZ' are widely understood and should be retained, rather than introducing new terminology.
• The distinction between authentication and authorization is not always clear-cut, and using separate terms can help to avoid conflating the two concepts.
• The use of 'auth' as a catch-all term can lead to bad abstractions and design choices, and should be avoided in favor of more specific language.
• Some commenters argue that 'identity' and 'access' are more suitable terms than 'login' and 'permissions', as they are more comprehensive and accurate.
• Others suggest that the existing terminology is sufficient, and that introducing new terms can create more confusion rather than less.
• There is a need for clear and consistent terminology in the field of security and authentication, to avoid misunderstandings and ensure effective communication.
• The use of technical jargon can be a barrier to understanding, and simpler language should be used whenever possible to improve clarity and accessibility.