Earlier quoted context omitted.
From experience quite a lot of HN commenters are in support of reactionary policies, unfortunately
Examples?
Search Algolia's HN index for common reactionary boogiemen
California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
51–60 of 69 posts
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#52Roughly 9 years ago: https://neveragain.tech/
neveragain.tech has had signgatures from thousands of engineers/developers/etc, yet ctrl+f 'Palantir' and many Palantir employees have signed that document.
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#53We should switch to a national ID system and be done with it. The patchwork we have is getting more ridiculous by the day.
The US already has a national ID system. What the Federal government can't do is make it mandatory to have a national ID, either directly or constructively through regulation. This matter has been to the Supreme Court many times over several decades and it is a matter of settled law that only the individual States have this authority. It would require a Constitutional amendment to transfer this authority from the Sta…
[flagged]
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author pointed out that one potential problem is feds subpoenaing data from the AAMVA and not notifying the state of California that it had done so. Given it's such a short article, I can't think of a good reason for why you would have overlooked this.
I didn't overlook it, it's simply not a relevant point. The state won't do anything about a individual subpoena wether it's against the state or a company.
That's not true. the State of California's official position is one of non-compliance with administrative subpoenas, for example:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/appendix-a-checklist-f...
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty rare. I find it unlikely the state would fight against basic driver license records released under a subpoena.
It’s unlikely, yes, but in the context of a battle between the executive branch and a state (over some question of rights) then it’s plausible. Depends on the state, why the information is being requested, and what’s going on in politics. State powers are a check on the federal government (10th Amendment). States need to assert those powers to keep them.
The 10th amendment is practically useless the way courts have interpreted other parts of the constitution.
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty rare. I find it unlikely the state would fight against basic driver license records released under a subpoena.
States fight the federal government all the time. It's practically a primary function of any solicitor/attorney general if only because the federal government of the only other 800lb gorilla in the state
I rarely see it in the news. Even when it is there, the feds usually get their way.
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's technically correct--if you show up at a place and time where the state accepts applications for an ID and submit your application with all required supporting documentation the state will not be able to charge a fee to process you application and give you your ID. But there is no limit on what it might cost you to (1) obtain the required supporting documentation and (2) go to where you can submit your applica…
> So far I don't think any proposal for stronger ID requirements has tried to address this. That isn’t some accident of circumstance. The entirety of the purpose of voter id initiatives is to disenfranchise these very people.
I don’t believe those people exist.
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't overlook it, it's simply not a relevant point. The state won't do anything about a individual subpoena wether it's against the state or a company.
That's not true. the State of California's official position is one of non-compliance with administrative subpoenas, for example: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/appendix-a-checklist-f...
This seems to be only for schools, only for immigration related information, and only for administrative warrants. It's not even non-compliance, it's just kicking it up a level to the superintendent.
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s unlikely, yes, but in the context of a battle between the executive branch and a state (over some question of rights) then it’s plausible. Depends on the state, why the information is being requested, and what’s going on in politics. State powers are a check on the federal government (10th Amendment). States need to assert those powers to keep them.
The 10th amendment is practically useless the way courts have interpreted other parts of the constitution.
Can’t win even a single battle if you won’t try to fight.
Re: California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database
#60It’s a sign of a badly designed system. In a well-designed one (have seen one, have helped to improve several) the drivers license database only has a personal identifier and the class of license identifier. Which is private information for sure but it would hardly be an end of the world if the feds learned I have the right to operate a motorcycle.
Perversely, this is the consequence of misguided privacy initiatives. Government agencies are discouraged or even forbidden from sharing data. Nobody has a reliable identifier. As a consequence, every single database out there will contain your name, dob, address and probably a photo. Oh, and because there’s no identity, they need to store a bunch more data to make sure you are not a fraudster. Also, in absence of a sensible electronic identity (because there’s no identity at all in the system), all of this data is used as a shared secret. Which makes it immediately commercially useful for identity theft, once obtained. And, of course, any of these giant piles of personal data can and will be breached in some way or another by both local and remote state actors.
It’s all because “identifiers are bad” and “no sharing information”. Are you guys satisfied with the privacy situation yet?