Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nozebleed, Dec 3, 2013.
go for it
Took them long enough!
You'd think that if the tax-payers shelled out $174 million for a website it would have some security features in place, instead of being completely vulnerable.
Is this the level of discussion we're going to have here?
Of course it is.
I don't even know why I asked the question.
How about that shutdown that cost us $24,000,000,000 for the sole purpose of furthering Ted's career? You know, since we're being on-topic an all...
Depends on what you call working. Instead of getting an error message because the site isn't working, you get a message that the site isn't working and you are put into a cue. Semantics.
I think that you meant queue.
Healthcare.gov is a disaster, and its multitude of problems have undermined our confidence in the government. That's assuming that we had any confidence in the government after congress' performance these past few years.
Did anyone read the article? This is about the site not being built with security in mind. Another words the government is helping you distribute your personal information through their incompetence.
How is anything I said "hyperbolic"?
The security issues are real:
As far as the cost goes if you can find a better number please do. I didn't post the $300-$600 million because I thought that would be exaggerating. That should be a damn nice website...
So either you don't know what "hyperbolic" means or you're just blowing smoke. I don't know which.
Funny because I'm pretty sure the Healthcare.gov website was built by a private contractor. You get what you pay for.
If we would have actually invested enough money in building the website from the start, there wouldn't have been these problems. But since half of Congress is perfectly fine with cutting off their nose to spite their face, we end up with this mess.
There is a ton of hand-waving in that article. What kind of vulnerabilities are we talking about? SQL injection? MITM? What exactly?
You're not a Republican or Tea Party type are you? You forgot to mention "train wreck".
Eh, blaming Congress for nickel and dimming the program ignores HHS's refusal to get a systems integrator to bring all the disparate parts together.
The federal government, especially the Pentagon seem increasingly unreliable when it comes to acquisitions and programs.
This article seems pretty good when it comes to the vulnerabilities that reside in Healthcare.gov.
The biggest problem appears to be the relative ease that attackers may have in creating MITM attacks.
It's hyperbolic because you imply that no security was built into the site.
Obviously some security was built in.
You could have talked about the degree and capability of that security, but instead you chose to describe it hyperbolically as "completely vulnerable" as if no security existed at all.
Not only would security have to obviously be built in, but would be mandated and required by HIPAA, so it would have had to be there from the start.
Mixed metaphors FTW!: "The patients are driving the asylum's bus that's headed straight towards the Obamacare train wreck"
Pass the buck, a true sign of leadership.
Plenty of money was invested, where it actually went is another question. It's pretty obvious the millions didn't get spent on technology and development.
Ah! Thank you.
The administration chose the contractors. It's a government-run website. The government does not get to absolve itself of blame if a contractor that they chose does a poor job.
No. I believe that the ACA is a good law (I would prefer single-payer), and I believe that it will have great long-term benefits. However, the website IS a train wreck. Have you used it? My home state (Illinois) utilises the national website, and it only started to function correctly this week (security issues aside).
I believe that the ACA is a positive change, but the implementation of the website was and continues to be terrible. We can't give our elected officials a pass when they deliver poor services simply because we like their politics.
For what it's worth, I believe that the national loss of confidence in congress is due to the lack of statesmanship in the Tea Party and Republican party. They are an embarrassment to conservatives, and they deserve to be called out on it as well.
A lot of those issues are pretty bad, but they also aren't that hard to fix to be honest. With clickjacking for example you just need to follow the steps here which are pretty straightforward for any competent developer to implement.
Yes the privates sector screws just about everything up when they're paid a fixed dollar amount..
The first mistake was having the website built by a contractor and the second was handing millions more people over to private sector insurance companies.
I don't think HIPPA comes into play as no medical information is needed to sign up for healthcare.
Sure. I'm not really arguing that the system is fatally flawed, but rather the program has flaws serious enough to allow an attacker to steal data.
What's important is how people talk about the flaws ("fundamental" "completely vulnerable") versus a clear-eyed examination of what the flaws are and how the site can be fixed.
The first is a political issue and you'll see partisan hacks flocking to it because that's easy ground to fight from. No one in Congress is capable of discussing "clickjacking," so we'll see big arguments using vague terminology and hyperbole.
Should've been publicoption.gov
I would expect these issues to be resolved by Christmas to be honest. I could probably fix them as a developer in less than a week - but you have to add QA and deployment to that. If those processes are world-class then add a day or so for both. Otherwise maybe 2-3-4 weeks.