https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/06/one-million-p...
Why do these systems hold onto user's data post verification?
Depending on the company, you could rate the reasons on a scale from "incompetence/naivete" to "revenue stream".
It’s somewhat understandable but also part of the problem.
I was working on a project, client is a Real Estate agency, they use a CRM where they upload houses and it in turn uploads it to various sites like Zillow. We needed a list of their listed houses, so we wanted to use that data source instead of making a CRUD where they have to add houses yet again.
We ask the CRM sales team about APIs, they tell us that there's no accounts for third parties, client accounts have APIs, so we have to ask the client for an API key (or for their account password).
Which makes sense in general I guess, but the data is public in our case, so the CRM sales staff 's idea was that we should ask the client to let us access their account in order to get public data. We proceeded to scrape the houses from a website like Zillow like cavemen.
As it happens, our project was ancilliary low-value. So I don't doubt that the clients of this CRM are vulnerable in a similar way, and the root cause of the issue isn't evident at all, I can see 2:
1- Paradoxically, having an API that always requires an API KEY (as opposed to allowing unauthenticated access for public data) is less secure, as credentials/tokens will be used more often when not necessary.
2- This CRM effectively acted as an aggregator, consuming the APIs to publish to other vendors, but they don't provide an API for other vendors to read data from them. This effectively causes third party vendors to authenticate as the client, which is just incorrect. Credentials should identify a person/group, not a usecase.
https://azcir.org/news/2025/04/10/are-az-medical-marijuana-c...
Set up a system so that it costs you nothing to do a bad thing but possibly wrecks you legally and financially to do the good thing, and people will inevitably do the bad thing. They shouldn't be collecting this information in the first place.
The people who design these policies are incapable of actually building things that work. They are not the intelligent, competent leaders exercising a careful craft that they like to pretend they are.
They keep going after age verification, online ID, central bank digital currencies, etc - keep this incident in mind. The people who implement and write these policies are morons. They don't game things out and plan for redundancy or resiliency. They don't take into account bad faith actors. They don't account for deliberate exploitation of the system.
Right, and keeping old passports used for verification should cause an audit to fail.
If there is a law about verifying buyers, how else are they going to pass that audit?
There's also laws mandating secure systems design.
Separately there's no _need_ to store the original document if the verification system is sound (and audit real, not some phony crap like in some of the scandals posted here on HN).
How else do you expect it to work? ‘Honest, we checked’ checkboxes?
They most likely weren't allowed to keep it past the verification per GDPR art.5. Once the passport has been verified for whatever purpose they needed it ("age verified to be > 18yo on 2026-06-12" or "identity verified to be XXXX YYYY"), there is no legitimate use for the passport photo and details anymore, and they should delete it.
You can compare this in a certain way to file hashes. A successful verification with a predefined minimum level of credibility can be encrypted to a special string for later being used, if a service needs to verify the person again. It doesn't matter then, that the original passport images or video ident has been deleted the second after id verification has been completed.
A family member was booking a school tour, when he noticed the URL of the Travel CRM included an id number. Sure enough, the CRM would return all his details given only the (sequential) id number without a need for credentials: high resolution passport scan, and all the other details provided when booking an overseas trip.
He notified the CRM company, and that email was ignored. He emailed again, proposing disclosure, and the problem was silently fixed with no response.
A few months later he mentioned it to the school, along with the fact that he had followed up and had the vulnerability fixed. The school went straight into panic mode, called him to the principal's office and forced him to write a statement so they could refer him to the Feds. I intervened, explaining that he was the good guy who got the vulnerability fixed, and the problem was the school's, since they had supposedly vetted the CRM for security when choosing a tour company.
All of a sudden from the school's point of view there was no problem and no need to mention it to any of the people whose information had been disclosed, despite my insistence. The people still haven't been notified. The school did acknowledge that the family member had done the right thing and verbally thanked him, but would not put anything in writing.
The people involved in the tour had their details leaked, but there was nothing special about those people in the system, so realistically every person whose details were in that CRM had their details, including passports, leaked. It was a major travel CRM provider, so the number of people in the system would have been 6 or 7 figures.
The kicker is that the family member was employed by a software company that had the school system as a customer. The IT person who was responsible for vetting the travel CRM (and had verbally thanked him) arranged for the school system to phone his employer and deliver an ultimatum: that the family member be sacked or they would risk losing a customer. The family member got the sack.
The image of people standing up for the noble whistleblower is far from the truth. Disclosing the company here won't achieve anything apart from garnering a few karma points and generating some short lived outrage at the company.
I'd consider disclosing it to the ICO, and made tentative steps in that direction at the time, but it's not clear that they are interested and whose interests they would protect.
Here's a question that might make this discussion useful: What is people's experience of reporting data breaches to the UK's ICO? In your case, was meaningful action taken by the ICO and was the person doing the reporting protected? .
How that doesn't turn into rampant identity theft I don't know, or maybe it does? Not, happily, for me... yet.
Friction and delay have always been aspects of security.
Or has that been fixed?
In terms of significant danger, perhaps you're thinking of nitrocellulose movie film that was phased out in the '50s.
To second the photographed/photocopied requirements, as an expat, I am frequently asked to send a scan of my passport to people or entities that are not necessarily the most secure.
I also have a couple of important documents that are literally PDFs. My Canadian citizenship certificate is a PDF with a barcode in it, that I can print off a copy of if I need to mail it, or show on my phone to a consular office or a border guard if needed. My work visa here in New Zealand is a PDF with my passport number and a visa number, which my workplace and bank checked with an online database. Fundamentally, these and my passport are pointers to a row in various databases.
So you cant fake non-existing passport because of issuer signature, but cloning is not a rocket science for many countries passports.
At least we’re keeping the children safe though by verifying ages. It’s worth giving up privacy for that…
iirc, one of the elements of GDPR is "storage limitation", i.e. you must not keep personal data for longer than you need it - and in this case, the data is only needed to verify the age of the user, and shouldn't ever be required again (unless people can now get younger).
Once a document has been used to verify a person's identity and that the person is of legal age, there is no reason to retain a copy of the document any more.
It would be reasonable and fair to retain a photo of the user to verify that the person matches the account, but that's it.
WHY THE F**k ARE THEY HOLDING ON TO THAT 10 YEARS LATER!?!?!?
Of course now I know better than to give out my SSN to anyone who asks for it, but I didn't know that as a teenager.
Until stupid s**t like this becomes illegal, it will just keep continuing.
In case you want to retrieve your test scores 10 years after you took it. They need some way to uniquely identify you. Sure, they could have given you a specific test taker ID, but what if you lost that? They could have created a way for you to log in with an e-mail address, but what if you changed e-mail addresses?
You might think "Why would I need my test scores from 10+ years ago?", but my wife just started a job and they demanded her college transcripts to prove she went there...over 20 years ago.
The problem here is using a username (the ID) as a password (security check)
I was appalled when renewing my car this year that I now need a Texas by Texas account (https://www.texas.gov/texas-by-texas/), which wants... a social security number because why?!?!
Anyway, yet another data breach incoming.
Modern equivalent “move over here for your picture ‘for the doctor’.”
No thanks, I’d like to opt-out!
https://www.upguard.com/breaches/social-insecurity-billions-...
In most countries, like most databases, our primary keys do not hold an expectation of secrecy.
I would even argue that the expectation of secrecy is what creates it's secret semantics, that is, it's secret because you make it secret. I get that it's a collective action thing, if you just publish your own SSN, a bank in another state might not be aware it's a public thing for YOU, and might open an account for a stranger.
Interestingly enough, for corporations, their identifiers, EIN, are not assumed to be private, in many states these are available through the DoS public records. So it turns out the system works just fine if you make the ID of a person (juristic or legal) public.
> Once a document has been used to verify a person's identity and that the person is of legal age, there is no reason to retain a copy of the document any more.
^1: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/documents/2025-04/ed..., number 36.
> The documents were hosted by systems used by cannabis clubs and a company called Nefos, which operates PuffPal, a platform that manages membership and age verification for cannabis retailers and clubs across Europe. The infrastructure storing these identity documents—full passport scans, driver’s licenses with photos, names, and identifying numbers—was left completely unprotected on publicly accessible web servers.
I cannot imagine the level of fines under GDPR for leaking that much PII
https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/d...
We're talking about a major french institution here, either public or private but colluding with the government to have their monopoly (don't know, don't care: they're all the same worms to me).
Speaking of which... There's been a recent case in France where a very nice lady working for some public institution (basically the IRS) was giving the name/wealth of "targets" to her brother so that her brother and his friends could go and kidnap/torture (fingers of victims have been cut) family members of rich french persons.
It's sickening and the real culprits are those creating the laws mandating this full on surveillance apparatus.
Store that fact in the computer. Good for one ID usage. Good for less critical stuff like this weed thing (versus say a visa application which may need to store).
The analogy is a nightclub bouncer checks your ID.
...the obvious thing to deploy is a cannabis club bouncer that checks your ID with only his eyes and hands and either bounces you or lets you in, depending on the outcome of that check.
That's far simpler than involving some unrelated third party and far more secure than storing any information about the event in any computer.
Pretty much the bingo of secure storage, even CTF demos make it less obvious. Storing a document that they have no business keeping in the first place, with no security whatsoever.
You would be surprised what some courts already count as hacking
I think everyone should understand that if they truly want something private, storing it offline or destroying it completely, are the only safer options.
Any sort of convenience to access said data, is a possible surface of attack.
https://boingboing.net/2026/06/28/a-million-passports-leaked...
> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
You can pay for the paywall, or there are ways around.
Author: Sean Hollister https://www.theverge.com/tech/947157/passports-data-breach-c...
Similar sounding (recent) leak: Hotel check-in system exposed 1M passports and driver's licenses (4 points, May/2026) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48152759
So dystopian