Distributed Ledger Technology

(Digital/Mobile ID and biometrics)
Currently, there is legislation in Oklahoma that has what is being referred to as new technology by the author of the legislation. Before discussing the legislation and DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology), the Constitutional Alliance wants to be clear; we do not know the author personally. It is not our intention to demean the author of the bill, HB3279. It is our belief, based on the author's own words during debate in committee, that the author was approached by a lobbyist and/or a company based in California that claims to have proprietary technology. Regardless of how the legislation came into being, the legislation must be stopped/killed. DLT is dependent on Blockchain technology, digital ID, "legal identity", and biometrics. Whether you live in Oklahoma, or any other state/commonwealth oppose any government action at any level that requires DLT, Digital ID, or mandatory biometrics.
 

The following link is to the debate that took place in committee with regards to DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology):

https://www.okhouse.gov/Video/Default.aspx

Using the calendar on the left hand side go to February 16th - then scroll down and click on Technology to listen/watch the video of the committee debate - the debate starts at the 10:48 mark on the video timeline and ends at the 11:10 minute mark of the video with the committee vote.

 We are only providing the video to substantiate what we say took place during the debate. We will be quoting the author of the bill. 

There are a few points that need to be made before we discuss the actual legislation.

  1. DLT is not proprietary technology. If you would like to take the time to learn the history of DLT, we are providing the following web-site:
  2. For a clear understanding of DLT, we provide the following link:

  3. There are risks with DLT, some of which we will cover by providing a statement in an email from a former intelligence agency senior advisor. Not withstanding that email, the link to the following article also provides some of the risks with the use of DLT:
  4. How safe is Blockchain technology? Not as secure as one might think:

  5. Far too many people believe biometrics (i,e fingerprints, high resolution digital facial images/photographs, iris scans, etc.) in databases are secure. We are providing three of many articles pertaining to different times that biometric databases were hacked and/or when biometrics were defeated even though it was technology companies using the biometrics of individuals
      1.   https://www.csoonline.com/article/3318238/the-opm-hack-explained-bad-security-practices-meet-chinas-captain-america.html
      2.   https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/hackers-claim-to-have-defeated-apples-touch-id-print-sensor/
      3.   Just this week: https://www.biometricupdate.com/202203/samsung-galaxy-biometric-software-hacked-overshadowing-strong-ultrasonic-sensor-performance
This article is about DLT and a bill in Oklahoma - HB3279. It is not customary for the Constitutional Alliance to focus so heavily on one bill in a state/commonwealth legislature. The reason the Constitutional Alliance is laser focused on HB3279 is because as the author said during a committee hearing - DLT is a technology that all states can use, but the author wanted Oklahoma to be on the cutting edge of this new technology and use the technology now. One other point about HB3279 is a bill that focuses on medical marijuana which is permitted for use in Oklahoma by state statute. There are in fact what seem to be legitimate reasons for the use of medicinal marijuana. That is not an issue the Constitutional Alliance focuses on or has an official position on. So, why is the Constitutional Alliance focusing on HB3279? The reason is HB3279 requires the use of DLT. Before moving on we are going to provide some of the language the author used during the committee hearing.

  1. "---Better than sliced bread."

  2. "---- it's all good."

  3. "---I will have to get you the name of the group."

  4. "I think the seed to sale tracking program is great, but I do not think it helps us with the entire process." 

  5. "I am working with OMMA (Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority), -- -- my understanding is there is only this group out there with this type of technology but if there is another group we would have to open up for bid --." 

  6. "--- Exciting not just for marijuana but for us for ah, every agency can put this in effect ----."

  7. When asked if a person could pay for marijuana with cash  "---Buying marijuana in the state of Oklahoma is a privilege and you oughta do it our way, not your way, this is not Burger King."

  8. "My best answer is I think the technology belongs to them." Talking about the Distributive Ledger Technology

  9. The author specifically uses the words "Legal Identity." The words "Legal Identity" come straight from U.N. Agenda 2030. Sustainable Development/U.N. Agenda 2030 requires every person in the world to submit to digital ID by 2030. 

Alright, anytime someone tells you a technology is better than sliced bread your ears should perk up with doubt.
Nothing involving technology is "all good." there are always risks.
The author of the bill said the technology was proprietary without clarifying if he was talking about DLT, or the software some company in California was using that is based on DLT.
Anytime a no bid contract is given, we expect the author to know the name of the company that the author is asking fellow legislators to give a contract.
When a legislator says that every agency in the state can use the technology, you can expect that legislation will come that requires all agencies to implement the use of the technology.
When the Bill's author is asked if people purchasing medicinal marijuana can pay cash, his answer was
"---Buying marijuana in the state of Oklahoma is a privilege and you oughta do it our way, not your way, this is not Burger King."
should get your attention.
The Constitutional Alliance stands firm in opposing any legislation, in any state/commonwealth that prohibits a person from paying cash. Keep in mind, this is government, not a privately owned business saying you cannot pay cash.
Many people are familiar with James Corbett of the CORBETT REPORT. Mr. Corbett not too long ago did a video about "The Global Digital Prison". We believe you will find that he concurs with our position. The following is a link to his video:
Moving on - The Constitutional Alliance opposes mandatory Digital ID. Mandatory Digital/Mobile ID requires an individual to own a smart phone and/or computer. Whether speaking about a computer or smart phone, they are the best surveillance tools that a person can own for a government or bad actors who want to surveil a person. Yes, there are precautions that people can take that may limit to what extent their devices can be compromised, but the precautions are not fool proof by any stretch of the imagination.
For nearly 20 years the Constitutional Alliance has opposed mandatory biometric enrollment. There is no longer any question about biometrics being
the linchpin of the 21st century surveillance state.
Nearly every paper we have published and/or article we have written focuses on biometrics. It is one thing if you want to voluntarily provide your biometrics; it is something far different when the government tells you that you must provide your biometrics. It is also far worse when the government 
captures/collects your biometrics without your knowledge or consent.
Finally, there are constitutional issues when FRT (Facial Recognition Technology) is used to follow your every move when you are in public; whether you are attending a rally, protest, concert, or sport event. A Co-Founder of the Constitutional Alliance provided the federal government with evidence that the largest biometric company at the time in the United States, in the words of their own employees, used "bogus testing", "rigged testing", and failed to tell investors or the public the company did not fulfill a contract because their FRT did not work, again according to one of the company's own employees. There was much more evidence provided.
Remember that the Constitutional Alliance warned legislators, and our members, that a French company named Safran had withheld information of significant importance from our government at the time they applied to do business in the United States. Safran had entered into a secret deal with a Russian biometrics company, Papillon; Papillon is a company with ties to Russian intelligence. The secret deal allowed the French company to use the algorithms of the Russian biometrics company. The French company was allowed to do business in the United States and in fact had contracts with the federal government and nearly every state.
It was the Constitutional Alliance that warned a Louisiana legislator that the PII (Personal Identifiable Information) of people who applied for drivers' licenses in Louisiana was for sale on the dark web. At first our warning was met with denial, but eventually the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles admitted there had been a compromise of the PII of many people who applied for Louisiana drivers' licenses.
The Constitutional Alliance was the first organization to say, and prove, that the Real ID Act 2005 was much more than a national ID. The Constitutional Alliance brought forth the concept that this is an international ID, because a footnote within the Real ID Act 2005 bill requires a mandatory high resolution digital facial image which is, in fact, in accordance with international standards to facilitate global biometric sharing.
Only the Constitutional Alliance is telling lawmakers at every level of government that the Real ID Act 2005 must be surgically repealed rather than wholly repealed. The reason for the surgical repeal is the Real ID Act itself repealed Section 7212, of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Section 7212 gave the federal government control of state drivers' licenses.
Finally, below you will read a copy of an email received by the Constitutional Alliance from a former U.S. senior intelligence agency individual. We have deleted the person's name and email address for what we hope you understand are obvious reasons. This person says why DLT is not something to be supported when it is being required by government at any level.
Email referenced in previous paragraph:
[To: Constitutional Alliance]

 

I do not believe anything the Govt [Government] does is secure, especially where data of citizens is involved. 

We are all being surveilled legally or illegally by any number of interested parties.

But to answer your particular question, is DLT [(Distributed Ledger Technology)] secure?  It may in fact prevent your neighbor from seeing your private information, but it will not prevent any number of Govt [Government] agencies from getting their hands on it if they so desire, not to mention the threat from foreign governments or hacker organizations.

Because of the distributed indexing/replication involved in any blockchain-based architecture, more people are required to have access to the data just to maintain the system. Imagine the number of networks and servers required to run such a distributed system. More human involvement = increased opportunity for exposure of data to unauthorized people. Even if data is encrypted, more people must have access to the decryption key. Another security issue. Secure encryption and decryption key management is hard to do and expensive, an incentive not to make it "too difficult", hence less secure.

Complete security?  Not possible. But the greatest threat is in the number of corrupt people who worship at the altar of the almighty dollar. They have no ethics except those having a dollar figure attached. The "insider threat" is real.
[From: former U.S. senior intelligence agency individual]
If you've ever shared any of our material before, there is a strong case to be made, this is the most important document we've ever asked you to share. Please share.
Scroll to top