Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 313 posts

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#301

Post by fc417fc802 »

seniorThrowaway wrote: post #217
swingboy wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> Yes there are genuine privacy and other concerns,

Not for government services. The only problem is if the government makes it overly easy for private companies to integrate with and make use of the system. Pretty much no website except perhaps my bank or health care provider have any business collecting my PII.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#302

Post by esseph »

packetlost wrote: post #196
thephyber wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, a facetious jab at legitimate criticisms of Voter ID laws. It's worth pointing out that the point of contact for state IDs is the DMV, which is the butt of every government inefficiency complaint. If, instead, it was done at USPS offices or even by postal workers on their routes, no one would complain. It's entirely about whether the burden is placed on the citizen to maintain their Constitutionally guarantee…

> which is the butt of every government inefficiency complaint I always find DMV (or whatever your state's equivalent) inefficiency arguments to be hilarious. They're run extremely efficiently for the government . They suck use because of that (long wait times, most important stuff gets shipped by mail weeks later).

> They're run extremely efficiently for the government.

That's because ours are all done by third party companies on contracts :P

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#303

Post by otterley »

k33n wrote: post #291
otterley wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems disingenuous, or at least antisocial, to insist that you are correct about a broad and unqualified statement you made while also declaring that you meant something narrower all along.

It's completely genuine, and it's obvious that I was referring to the basic meaning of the word the entire time to even a casual observer. Ascribing malice seems a bit irrational to me.

It is a mistake to think that what you believe is "obvious" is obvious to everyone else, and that people agree on a "basic meaning" of words that aren't used in everyday conversation. (Observe and count the number of times the word "sovereignty" comes up in conversation in your daily life.)

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#304

Post by k33n »

otterley wrote: post #303
k33n wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely genuine, and it's obvious that I was referring to the basic meaning of the word the entire time to even a casual observer. Ascribing malice seems a bit irrational to me.

It is a mistake to think that what you believe is "obvious" is obvious to everyone else, and that people agree on a "basic meaning" of words that aren't used in everyday conversation. (Observe and count the number of times the word "sovereignty" comes up in conversation in your daily life.)

You are of course free to pretend that legalese and case-law should dictate the use of ordinary words — to the point of ascribing malice to those who don’t do that.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#305

Post by k33n »

jeffbee wrote: post #222
Jcowell wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean no mechanism? People can just say no? What I think you mean is that they’re are mechanisms today to combat folks saying no, but nothing stops (only punushes) people from saying no. It’s a lot harder these days given the 60 years of progress

10 years ago we had 50 years of progress but in 2026 we're back down to zero progress.

You might be back down to zero progress and if that’s true you have my genuine sympathy. I look around and all I see is great progress everywhere. I don’t care much about social politics though. People being mad at each other about whatever offense is popular today just doesn’t register with me.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#306

Post by swed420 »

bayindirh wrote: post #113
mschuster91 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is... being opposed to a national ID card scheme is bipartisan in the US [1]. The Republicans go as far as to yap about "mark of the beast", the Democrats and the ACLU fear them being used as part of a surveillance state. [1] https://www.nyclu.org/commentary/letter-beware-mark-beast-wa...

> the Democrats and the ACLU fear them being used as part of a surveillance state. AFAICS from the other side of the pond, United States Government can track people well enough even without a national ID card. They have successfully worked around that problem. So, it's a moot point now. No?

Correct. The challenge is convincing enough people of that.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#307

Post by alistairSH »

mulmen wrote: post #290
alistairSH wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever society needs... this is why we have elections and stuff. Really, the broader point is I'm tired of giving away massive chunks of my PII (SSN, DL copies, etc) instead of just having something from the government that will say "Yep. He is who he claims." If we, collectively, decide we need age-gated websites, then let's enable that properly. I shouldn't have to give NYT a scan of my DL and my SSN to gain acce…

> If we, collectively, decide we need age-gated websites We haven’t decided this. > having something from the government that will say "Yep. He is who he claims." You’re literally trading liberty for convenience. I understand your position. I just fundamentally disagree that the tradeoff you are so eager to make is worthwhile.

What liberty am I trading? The government already knows who I am.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#308

Post by mulmen »

alistairSH wrote: post #307
mulmen wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we, collectively, decide we need age-gated websites We haven’t decided this. > having something from the government that will say "Yep. He is who he claims." You’re literally trading liberty for convenience. I understand your position. I just fundamentally disagree that the tradeoff you are so eager to make is worthwhile.

What liberty am I trading? The government already knows who I am.

They don’t know what you do.

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#309

Post by otterley »

k33n wrote: post #304
otterley wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a mistake to think that what you believe is "obvious" is obvious to everyone else, and that people agree on a "basic meaning" of words that aren't used in everyday conversation. (Observe and count the number of times the word "sovereignty" comes up in conversation in your daily life.)

You are of course free to pretend that legalese and case-law should dictate the use of ordinary words — to the point of ascribing malice to those who don’t do that.

I never ascribe malice to anyone who makes an honest mistake and doesn’t continue to double down when corrected, insisting they’re right or that they meant something else and everyone should have understood them somehow. There are lots of smart people here from all backgrounds and it’s good to defer to others who are better informed about a subject (and I’m no exception).

Re: FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses

#310

Post by embedding-shape »

iamnothere wrote: post #247
embedding-shape wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Official IDs don’t exist now. The “surrogate” IDs (SSN, DLs) are not universal nor mandatory, and there are legal barriers to using them as an official national ID.

So "REAL ID Act of 2005" isn't the creation of a official ID and existed since 2015 or so?
Post reply on HN