Live data from Hacker News

FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

krebsonsecurity.com

211–220 of 313 posts

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#211
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American states are sovereign entities. This is very well understood in Constitutional law, albeit a little confusing for the laymen as the common understanding of sovereignty would be something like, well France is sovereign because it has an army and it conducts trade and all of those sorts of sovereign things. But US states are sovereign entities who have, effectively, joined together to delegate some of their sov…

No, US States are not sovereign entities. They have no ability to conduct independent international diplomacy. They do not have independent militaries, and they have no right to secede. The supremacy clause (article 7) makes it clear that states cannot override federal law. With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An ent…

U.S. states are sovereign entities despite these limitations.

See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/

"Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992). The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).

"Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people who were, in Hamilton's words, 'the only proper objects of government.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976).

"The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as backchannels exist in the system to accommodate those without SSNs/DLs, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off And again, as long as backchannels exists in the system to accommodate those without a Government ID, it is possible to get by even if the system tries to cut you off. Don't you see and understand you already have government ID? You're just calling it by another name...

Once the official ID exists, those backchannels will be cut off, as they have been in much of Europe.

> Once the official ID exists, those backchannels will be cut off,

Do you seriously not get it yet? You have IDs now, and you claim those backchannels exists now, and haven't been cut off. Why would calling something something else suddenly make those backchannels be cut off? How come they exists today in the first place then?

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Monopoly on violence" isn't some new concept I just invented here, it's a established concept about "legal use of force", which the government typically is the sole arbiter of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence Of course many engage in "violence", or "provide it", that is not in doubt.

I know it’s not new, thus why I said I’ve never seen a definition that is both true and useful. In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence…

> In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully.

Yes, and you can do so, because the government and state says it's OK to do so. If they didn't, it wouldn't. This is the core idea.

> In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc.

Hence the whole "sole arbiter of" and last paragraph in my last comment. All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#214

I know some modern, normal countries have done variations of this but the US missed a golden opportunity to give everyone an RSA keypair when they were coerced into signing up for an Enhanced/REAL ID. Instead of scanning, taking photos of or holding licences up to webcams (I was asked to do this recently) you provide your public key or, better, a signed message containing the name, website or other identifier which g…

the average american, even educated and talented ones, have absolutely no serious understanding what keypairs are, or why they need to take care of them i also have 0 trust in the USG's ability to not lose those, either through hacking or through blatent corruption a la DOGE, et al

I don't manage the data stored in my passport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#215
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, US States are not sovereign entities. They have no ability to conduct independent international diplomacy. They do not have independent militaries, and they have no right to secede. The supremacy clause (article 7) makes it clear that states cannot override federal law. With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An ent…

U.S. states are sovereign entities despite these limitations. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ "Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florid…

This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not sovereign entities. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it’s not new, thus why I said I’ve never seen a definition that is both true and useful. In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence…

> In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. Yes, and you can do so, because the government and state says it's OK to do so. If they didn't, it wouldn't. This is the core idea. > In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not on…

If you define the entity as “all institutions that are allowed to create and enforce laws” and then say “that entity has a monopoly on creating and enforcing laws” you’ve created a tautology.

There are clear counter examples to your statement in the U.S.

States are not “allowed” to use violence because the Federal government says it’s okay. States have a right to create and enforce laws.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#217

I know some modern, normal countries have done variations of this but the US missed a golden opportunity to give everyone an RSA keypair when they were coerced into signing up for an Enhanced/REAL ID. Instead of scanning, taking photos of or holding licences up to webcams (I was asked to do this recently) you provide your public key or, better, a signed message containing the name, website or other identifier which g…

This would probably be considered “disenfranchising” because people would have a hard time keeping track of their public key and the process to recover it would involve having to take off work, transportation, etc.

it would likely be built into the ID, like a PIV/CAC card. I thought about this same thing many years ago, the state DMV's could be in a PKI web of trust with a federal signer/issuer/cross-signer above them. Proving your identity online would mean inserting your ID into your computer so it could be crypto-graphically validated. Yes there are genuine privacy and other concerns, but we'll probably end up there anyway and could have avoided all the mess of having these crappy third party for profit companies involved. The tech already exists, and has existed for some time.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#218

I know some modern, normal countries have done variations of this but the US missed a golden opportunity to give everyone an RSA keypair when they were coerced into signing up for an Enhanced/REAL ID. Instead of scanning, taking photos of or holding licences up to webcams (I was asked to do this recently) you provide your public key or, better, a signed message containing the name, website or other identifier which g…

the average american, even educated and talented ones, have absolutely no serious understanding what keypairs are, or why they need to take care of them i also have 0 trust in the USG's ability to not lose those, either through hacking or through blatent corruption a la DOGE, et al

DoD (DoW whatever) has been running the CAC PKI infrastructure for over 20 years, and believe me a good deal of their three quarters of a million employees have no idea what PKI or keypairs are but use it to log into their workstation and do all sorts of online identity validation every single day. https://www.cac.mil/common-access-card/

I'm not saying the gov is competent in general btw, but they are actually far better about this area than private industry, in my direct experience.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#219
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. states are sovereign entities despite these limitations. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ "Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florid…

This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not sovereign entities. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.

Folks have provided great information. It's up to you to decide to accept the facts or continue to double down on your private worldview, but it won't serve you well to be ignorant of the facts here.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it was typical of the Jim Crow South. Black mothers were not permitted in hospitals, and county clerks refused to register home births. It was all part of the system of oppression.

We don't live in the Jim Crow South anymore - you're making an extreme stretch here to try and paint a picture that isn't accurate. My point stands.

Your point is laying in a ditch bleeding to death. There are loads of people alive today who personally suffered from Jim Crow. These practices continued right through 1968, and were revived in Texas between 2013 and 2016.
Post reply on HN