>>109461073
Who even uses that memeshit

>>109462220
Defensive, annoying zoomers and Peter Pan millennials will be here shortly to explain why they do, very shortly

>>109461073
May have been leaked? Were they leaked or not?
I never uploaded my ID to Discord. I wouldn't upload my ID to Discord. However, it's worth pointing out that thousands of HD REAL IDs have been uploaded to the internet in the past, and they still are out there. And so-called "liveness verification" systems are absolutely possible to defeat using trivial tools

>>109461073
>laugh at anyone
Oh. I do anon. I do.

>>109462220
Idiots determined to re-invent the wheel when there's one on the shelf that's been rollin' friction free for over a decade... And the type of idiot that thinks they're clever because they've found something doing the same thing as the tools from two decades earlier, but now with reduced control and meme grade hype.

>>109462308
>May have been leaked? Were they leaked or not?
I'll take a stab (not knowing any moar than that screenshot, if it's real) at there has been a leak. They know at least 70k records compromised. As for who, they don't know (sounds legit), so "may". Depending on who you is.

>>109462308
>thousands of HD REAL IDs have been uploaded to the internet in the past,
They deserve what happens next, I say. Unfortunately, many of them will breed.

>And so-called "liveness verification" systems are absolutely possible to defeat using trivial tools
If you can measure it, you can fake it.

But here is the 'real' issue with this paradigm. Them 70k victims, I mean users, how they gonna rotate their now compromised identity to something secure?

>>109461073
Impossible, they're deleted after verification. Stupid and harmful misinformation.

>>109461073
>image that according to every company involved *never leave your phone* were leaked
oh wow, who could have predicted this except every single person

>>109462220
>Requires login to view anything
>Not indexed on Google
Never understood Discord...

>>109462960
>How are they gonna rotate it?
It would be very simple, but it would cost a lot of money. I have the solution.

>>109463168
You have a complicated relationship with the solution*

>>109463185
No, I literally have the solution.
What I do NOT have is SSH access to login.gov. I cannot roll out the solution without that access, and it would need to be authorized (by all relevant authorities), legally speaking.

>>109463200
why do you want to hack the government like you did your body?

>>109463222
I don't want to hack the government.
I would setup a ZKP implementation similar to those seen in some European countries.
It would also require issuing everyone new IDs (The DMVs could be a part of this rollout)
That's the only realistic solution to this problem that satisfies the needs.

>>109463168
>It would be very simple
Would it? Mayhaps you'd care to enlighten us with your cunning plan to do away with the disarray and dunk the disruptions.

>>109463200
>What I do NOT have is SSH access to login.gov
*IS* there ssh access to login.gov?
assuming for yes, why would they ignore industry standard best practices and allow a password, over say, the PKCS-11 smartcard they was issued as ID?

>I cannot roll out the solution without that access
To assume you intend to adjust their identity, how are you planning on updating all of their contacts, contracts, etc?
Your plan to deal with the compromise of their physical appearance can be achieved with SSH?

>>109463235
>(The DMVs could be a part of this rollout)
IMHO, it'd be "better" at the "passport" level. From a citizen end, you get a passport - from the .gov you get the standardised national ID that keeps being pressed for.

You could even use one of the blank pages in the digital section of the passport to hold an x.509 pair for use in authentication and authorisation.

Man if only there was some way of Proving your age where the service has Zero Knowledge of who you are.

>>109463564
>Would it? Mayhaps you'd care to enlighten us with your cunning plan to do away with the disarray and dunk the disruptions.
No, I'd rather not share too many specifics, but I will say this: My solution is written in OCaml, because I found it to be the best tool for the job.

>assuming for yes, why would they ignore industry standard best practices and allow a password, over say, the PKCS-11 smartcard they was issued as ID?
It's worth pointing out that when I say "ssh to login.gov" it's not so simple. Because in reality authorization and access to federal government systems is actually extremely complicated, to the layman, especially.

>To assume you intend to adjust their identity, how are you planning on updating all of their contacts, contracts, etc?
I would need access to those databases, like I said before. But I would create a script which would programmatically extract the data from every citizen in the United States of America and place it into a unified schema, accounting for the differences between the databases used by the various states (and territories) of the United States.
>Your plan to deal with the compromise of their physical appearance can be achieved with SSH?
That's a tricky one.
>IMHO, it'd be "better" at the "passport" level. From a citizen end, you get a passport - from the .gov you get the standardised national ID that keeps being pressed for.
No, there are issues with that, mostly political ones.

File: file.png (774 KB, 1966x1104)

774 KB PNG

>>109463647
ZKP.

>>109463651
>No, I'd rather not share too many specifics
It's almost as if it's not been fully considered...

>when I say "ssh to login.gov" it's not so simple
No shit.

>authorization and access to federal government systems is actually extremely complicated
Authorization, maybe. Depends who, policy has failed to apply rigidly more than once.
Access? pfft. Up and down the scale there's breaches. *Legitimate* access... If you're supposed to be doing it, you shouldn't be finding it hard. There's an IT team to make sure you don't have issues.

>But I would create a script
Great. That's gonna make bob know his wife now called alice? The phone company? The water company? etc etc. The sheer number of contracts written and verbal - most unkown to that database - seem to be vastly unconsidered.

>That's a tricky one.
But it's the one that matters, isn't it?
To ignore all the disarray and disruption it would cause, rotating the entry in a DB is hardly rocket surgery now is it? In fact, one would tend to imagine there is a system already in place to handle this... I can't be the only person with a different name to the birth certificate.

> mostly political ones.
Like, what?
The mass exodus seeking better conditions? I know if I lived there I'd be wanting the fuck out...

>>109463769
The associations would have to be made, as well. I don't have access to the government systems in question, so i can't deploy the solution to the cloud. I would need those ssh keys, and probably a team of 30 similarly educated people, but it could be done.

>Access? pfft. Up and down the scale there's breaches. *Legitimate* access... If you're supposed to be doing it, you shouldn't be finding it hard. There's an IT team to make sure you don't have issues.

Finding the legitimate access is actually extremely fucking hard. You try winning a federal contract. Lets see how far you get lol.

>>109463989
>The associations would have to be made, as well.
That doesn't entirely explain how you intend to deal with the vast majority of the disruptions caused in the incredibly simple adjustment of the database fields.

>so i can't deploy the solution to the cloud
There is no cloud.
Only someone else's computer you have no control over.

>Finding the legitimate access is actually extremely fucking hard.
Actually. No. If you're supposed to be doing it, they literally just f'kin give it to you.

>You try winning a federal contract.
If they had a project I would care to work on, I'd maybe give it a shot. As I'm to understand this tends to run on a lowest bid, I'm confident I can undercut.
But everything their system is doing kinda deserves to die. From the transfer of children as property, through to whoring out their GDP as collaterol on loans, they have a large feature requirement set that is incompatable with moral compunction.
I can't work for these people and further their aims.

>>109461073
>digital garbage
how are you posting? did you make smoke signals that someone else converted into text?

>>109464252
>Only someone else's computer you have no control over.
I'm not a newfag dude I"m using the industry standard terminology here

>That doesn't entirely explain how you intend to deal with the vast majority of the disruptions caused in the incredibly simple adjustment of the database fields.
It's not so simple when you're actually writing the schema, and writing the schema properly takes a lot of time.

>If they had a project I would care to work on, I'd maybe give it a shot. As I'm to understand this tends to run on a lowest bid, I'm confident I can undercut.
I would need at least 6 million dollars for this. All 50 states + territories, 6 million dollars, that's more than a fair ask I think. Now you go look at how much the IT industry is actually getting in federal contracting, and you tell me where the real grifting is.

>I can't work for these people and further their aims.
Fair enough

>>109464301
NTA ...
But just because it's rendered in a digital format it becomes garbage?
Or could it be that some digital experience is?

>>109464322
>I"m using the industry standard terminology here
And I'm describing using objective reality. The incompatabliity is neither my fault nor problem.

>and writing the schema properly takes a lot of time
It takes time. But not *that* much. Many corporate databases have far greater complexity.

Still. Completely fails to address how you would intend to deal with all of the disruption and disarray downstream of adjusting these fields.

Which could, in theory, be adjusted regardless of the application of your schema.

>I would need at least 6 million dollars for this
Legit, there's a few k "work" at best. And most of that is in understanding the clusterfuck that is in current implimentation, and the intended use cases. Mebbe a week or two interacting with each of the grunts that actually use it in their workload to ensure the system is optimally suitable, become aware of edge cases to catch.

Be done in six month. Another six to ensure when I walk it stays standing, check things are as intended. Six mil sounds a little steep. But as you rightly point out .gov funding is typically good for the raping, and I would advise to rape them first - yours is incoming regardless, but at least this way you've got something...

>Fair enough
Consider. It's the going along with the ride that makes any of it possible.
Actively working to enable it doesn't bode well for long term prospects...

File: file.png (574 KB, 1778x1314)

574 KB PNG

>>109464514
The objective reality is the "cloud" as I used it does fucking exist, you fucking moron. The Oracle Cloud, The Google Cloud Platform, The Amazon Cloud, These are all real fucking things that exist, get over it.

>It takes time. But not *that* much. Many corporate databases have far greater complexity.
It's on par with corporate complexity.

>Still. Completely fails to address how you would intend to deal with all of the disruption and disarray downstream of adjusting these fields.

I would need to see the fields to write the plan first.

>Legit, there's a few k "work" at best. And most of that is in understanding the clusterfuck that is in current implimentation, and the intended use cases. Mebbe a week or two interacting with each of the grunts that actually use it in their workload to ensure the system is optimally suitable, become aware of edge cases to catch.

Man you will fuck off with this jargoninsm. It's unnecessary. Six million is not fucking steep. Look at this picture. Read what it says.You will find many other states have paid about this range. What am I offering is not just a good deal, it would basically be the fucking deal of a century. Once again bitch, I welcome you to hop on https://sam.gov and see if you can win exactly ONE contract. I am done responding to you.

>>109462960
What an incel post.

>>109464562
oh and btw newsom wasn't lying, he really did get those digital ids delivered. i have one

>>109462967
How on Earth would that work? If a government requires verification, and a company just says "yeah we verified but then deleted the photo so you're on you're own to disprove us", then nothing happens.

There's no chance the IDs are just plain deleted.

File: x.png (1.99 MB, 1408x768)

1.99 MB PNG

>>109464602

>>109464562
>These are all real fucking things that exist, get over it.
They are all other people's computer they have more control over than you.
Prove me wrong.

>t's on par with corporate complexity.
Iunno... There's a few examples. Just the Rolls Royce metalurgy catalog is probably more intense, about as many entries, far more fields per entry. Then think of all the ones that are tracking multiple types of thing alongside complex relationships. Once you've done BMD the rest tends to nestle around nicely...

> would need to see the fields to write the plan first.
Sounds like a cop-out. You already know most of them - I assume you're a citizen. I'm not and *I* know most of them. Predicting the scope and scale of downstream disruption shouldn't be too difficult. How to deal with that maybe not so, but maybe that's why you're repeatedly failing to address it when specifically prompted.

>You will find many other states have paid about this range
You paid 100 for something I can get for 0.10. Congratulations.

>I welcome you to hop on
The only reason I would entertain this is to intentionally embezel as much funding as possible, whilst ensuring a progression from 'swirling the bowl' to 'powerflush'.

You *sure* that's what you want?

>>109464590
I'll be sure to inform my daughter.

>>109464625
"Governments audit software and logs, not images"
Yeah. They pay the third party identity broker that can't be bothered to secure their systems in any meaningful fashion to do this.