back to article You dopes! US state's pot dealer database pwned after security goes up in smoke

The US state of Washington says a miscreant was able to access the system it uses to track the manufacturing and sale of marijuana. The Evergreen State's Liquor and Cannabis Board – a job that sounds way cooler than it actually is – yesterday admitted that last weekend someone was able to exploit a vulnerability in one of its …

  1. asdfasdfasdf2015

    evil feds

    i bet it was the feds... they're tired of the states breaking federal law... i suspect one of the green states is gonna have a massive fbi/ice smackdown

    1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      Re: evil feds

      Under feral law, weed is still illegal to possess or sell. So in the states that have legalized it anyone involved in the trade is violating a feral law. Also, note, there is a notorious 1930s decision by the Nine Seniles that basically said the ferals can impose their will on intrastate commerce (such as this) as well as interstate commerce. The original case had to do with wheat allotments and a farmer growing wheat for his own use on his farm (never left his property). The Nine Seniles ruled the ferals could count the wheat against any allotment the farmer had.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: evil feds

        I predict Trump will oppose any crack down at this late date. He knows how people think, and he'll see this for the loser it is. Now if he can just get Jeff Sessions to shut up about it...

      2. beep54

        Re: evil feds

        This reminds me of a story told me by a Hungarian who successfully escape during the failed revolution. His father was 'disappeared' for some years because he had slaughtered the family pig for food. The authorities took exception to that as, obviously, it was the state's pig and not the family's.

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: evil feds

          The authorities took exception to that as, obviously, it was the state's pig

          Legally it was. Part of the nationalization of agriculture in the Eastern block was state taking ownership of all farm assets and stock including animals. So even if you were looking after an animal you were officially "renting" it from the local kolhoz/sovhoz or whatever it was called in the relevant country.

          The exceptions to this were Bulgaria which continued pissing off the soviets by allowing an agricultural party and not switching to a single party communist-only system and (this one I am not sure about, so do not count my word for it) Poland. These two countries did not go through the standard Soviet style industrialization of farming, so ownership of farm animals and even some land ownership remained all the way until the fall of the wall (*).

          Everywhere else it was indeed the state's pig. Especially in post-revolution Hungary after the Stalin era soviets (this was before Hrushov losened up the bolts a bit) stamped their order on everything with IS-3 tank tracks.

          (*)Actually, I do not know about Czechoslovakia either. So there, maybe, it could have been your pig. Everywhere else except those privileged to live under Dada's rule - state's pig for sure

      3. Clarecats

        Re: evil feds

        Feral law? The ferals can impose...

        I know about feral cats, feral horses, feral pigs, interesting to see what feral law enforcement looks like.

    2. Eddy Ito

      Re: evil feds

      I'll put money on it being the Girl Scouts instead of the feds.

      1. IceC0ld Silver badge

        Re: evil feds

        Re: evil feds

        I'll put money on it being the Girl Scouts instead of the feds.

        clever girls

        look to the location where weed is used most, and target the cookie sales accordingly LOL

  2. Elmer Phud

    "or what their aims for breaching the site may have been. "

    Location, location, location -- then a few big trucks late at night?

    1. Adam 1

      Re: "or what their aims for breaching the site may have been. "

      You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!

  3. M7S

    Evidence of how the breach occurred

    would that be a....

    ...smoking gun?

  4. unwarranted triumphalism

    Serves them right

    Dope is still against the law. Anyone involved in it is fair game.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Serves them right

      The framers of the Constitution should really have thought about adding some clause that gave states the right to exercise some sort of democratic choice about their local laws.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Serves them right

        For a complete book on the history of hemp, particularly the recent past, see The Emperor Wears No Clothes. Quite an eye opener.

        1. unwarranted triumphalism

          Re: Serves them right

          I don't care about your excuses. Dope is wrong.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Serves them right

            No alcohol for you!

            Weed or Alcohol, which kills more?

            And, at least Weed has medical benefits.

            ... I suppose Alcohol kills bacteria.

            /// I’ve never used weed, but I am in favor of State’s Rights. They generally listen to the people...

      2. Tikimon

        Re: Serves them right

        "The framers of the Constitution should really have thought about adding some clause that gave states the right to exercise some sort of democratic choice about their local laws."

        They did, with deliberate and precise intent: Amendment X:

        "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

        It's quite clear with no doubt about what it says. The federal government has been ignoring and chipping away at it ever since, but states' rights over federal are built into the foundation of the country.

      3. Claptrap314 Silver badge

        Re: Serves them right

        They most certainly did think about it. You can read their decision in Article IV, Clause 2, (from wikipedia) "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

        In order to have a functioning Federal government, federal actions must preempt state actions when the Federal government has the constitutional right to act. The Doctrine of Nullification was an explicit rejection of this clause first raised in the run up to the US Civil War, as both the abolitionists and the slavers sought to protect their local gains against being overruled.

    2. Rafael #872397

      Re: Serves them right

      Dude. Mellow out, like. Duuuuuuuuude!

      1. Agamemnon

        Re: Serves them right


        Here, hit this.

    3. Agamemnon

      Re: Serves them right

      I'm a Californian living Washington. We genuinely can't figure out what the fuss is about. Oh, yeah: Follow the Money.

      [I don't actually want to toke right now but I'm packing a bowl This Very Second just to piss you off.]

      You *do* understand that it's legal in, *GASP*, Washington DC?

      Ok for The Beltway (and thank goodness, those twots could hit he bong a few times, mellow out), OK for Me, NONE for you. Prohibition of cannabis was actually a class-war issue against Puerto Ricans and Blacks by none other than Tricky Dick and friends. It's been used to fuel the Corporate Prison System for decades. Folk interested in synthetic stringy/ropey like things got in on the act and "Marijuana" was made illegal, when everyone actually calls it Cannabis.

      Go drink your shit diet-pilsner-lite, turn on Reefer Madness (and enjoy the lack of prohibition) and leave those of us on the West Toast alone to our freedoms. Don't like it? Don't smoke it. Easy-peasy.

      Now the IT angle:

      ♫ Don't bogart that database, my frieeeend, pass it oooover to meeeeee. ♬

      1. unwarranted triumphalism

        Re: Serves them right

        The same old lies trotted out by th druggie brigade. Not interested.

        And I don't drink either. I notice you lot are keen on accusing your opponents of being alcoholics. That's an interesting form of projection you've got going there.

        1. phuzz Silver badge

          Re: Serves them right

          I could understand your objection if someone was sat right next to you blowing smoke in your face, but otherwise, what difference does it make to your life if someone decides to alter their consciousness?

          If you're not a fan of alcohol, I assume you also eschew caffeine as well? What about sugar?

          Also, your username is possibly too apt.

  5. Tom Paine Silver badge

    That pic...'s Elon Musk, isn't it?

    1. beep54

      Re: That pic...

      That was my first thought too!

    2. Alister Silver badge

      Re: That pic...

      It's David Walliams

  6. John Brown (no body) Silver badge


    "Only the manifest data is considered sensitive, as the other records are public information."

    Really? Now the hacker not only knows future shipment dates for however much in advance the database is supposed to be updated, but knows which vehicles are used. Non-sensitive data, when closely tied to sensitive date becomes itself sensitive.

    1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

      Re: Sensitive?

      The term the US military has is "EEFCs"--Essential Elements of Friendly Communications. I don't know if this came before or after that highly-detailed report on our nuclear capabilities which was assembled from public (nonclassified) sources.

  7. JimmyPage Silver badge

    A lot of ignorance about US law here ...

    which isn't surprising, seeing as most UK citizens know as much about their own laws ...

    1. EnviableOne Silver badge

      Re: A lot of ignorance about US law here ...

      yeah but a good 70% of UK law is not on the statute book, it lives in the case law.

      and the US law in question is the Bill of rights, the first ammendments to the consitution, and as i am lead to believe, required learning in any US grade school.

      1. Claptrap314 Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        Re: A lot of ignorance about US law here ...

        Hahahaha! When I was in school (> 30 years ago), government was your senior year. History got more coverage. My understanding now is that a lot of schools start "history" around 1900.

        But the issues in question are the either the Supremacy Clause, which states that federal laws preempt the states, or the Tenth Amendment with its "powers not delegated" language. The later for those who question the claim that the US government can outlaw use/manufacture/ownership of a substance generally, the former for those who don't.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A lot of ignorance about US law here ...

          There's also the Article (IV ?) requiring states recognise the determinations of other states, even if their laws do not align.

          For various reasons it's rarely tested, but was been mooted in cases where some states refuse to recognise mixed-race marriages back in the 50s.

          1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

            Re: A lot of ignorance about US law here ...

            You're talking about Full Faith and Credit. And yeah, it's a bit of an odd duck. The thing is, that the States retain their essential sovereignty. Which means that if State X passes does something that State Y finds obnoxious, State Y cannot be compelled to comply with what State X has done. The best example that I know was when Mississippi passed a law making it illegal for its citizens to purchase out-of-state lottery tickets. A suit against Alabama to help enforce that law would have gone nowhere.

            The core focus was on marriage, adoption, probate, and contract enforcement. If different states had different regulations for how old you needed to be to get married, you could be married in one state and illegal in another. This clause meant that you would not be arrested if you crossed state lines. Which works great until states have strongly held differences regarding an issue such as marriage. So we've had some go arounds on that.

            Fun fact: my dad is two years older than my mother, but when they got married, he was the one that had to take his mother with him to get the license. :D

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020