HealthCare.gov Suffered 316 Security Incidents

[morningreis]

Tell me, would you be defending this THIS hard if the ACA was put in place by a Republican? GO.

On second thought, no need - we all already know the answer.

Would you be criticizing the ACA THIS hard if it was put in place by a Republican? GO.

See, it goes both ways. Time to be objective. Any security breach is bad, but if you think that this is the worst of the worst, then you need perspective because public websites like that - particularly government ones - are under attack constantly. Some breaches are to be expected. You probably are only hearing about this BECAUSE it's a public, government website and are required to disclose such information. There are tons of private entities who also are under attack constantly, but typically they only have their hand forced into disclosing stuff when it's bad and people's data has been compromised.

TRUMP all the way to the White House 2016 accept no substitutes.

We have a 5 billion dollar website. I have so many websites ... I hire people. They do a website. It costs me three dollars. I'll build a new website. A great big orange website, bigger than all the other websites. It'll say "TRUMP" right at the top in big, gold, Comic Sans font. I'll make China pay for it too. They'll say that they're only gonna pay $2, but I'll say $3. I don't do deals. Trump doesn't settle. Look, I'm the best at websites. Just read my book, "Art of the Website." It's better than the Bible - and believe me, that's a great book. My favorite quote from it is when Jesus says how much he loves HTML5. Obama's website take JOBS away from Americans!! And oh man is it gonna be secure. So secure. Ben Carson already told me he's down for backend development, and I'm eyeing Sarah Palin for DevOps. So don't you worry about security. Nobody will attack the website because I'll just sue them.


Close? How did I do?

 

[Jagger100]

Would you be criticizing the ACA THIS hard if it was put in place by a Republican? GO.

See, it goes both ways. Time to be objective. Any security breach is bad, but if you think that this is the worst of the worst, then you need perspective because public websites like that - particularly government ones - are under attack constantly. Some breaches are to be expected. You probably are only hearing about this BECAUSE it's a public, government website and are required to disclose such information. There are tons of private entities who also are under attack constantly, but typically they only have their hand forced into disclosing stuff when it's bad and people's data has been compromised.

The problem is that ACA was an unpopular as seen by the fact it handed the congress immediately over to the opposing party as fast as elections allowed. It was still foisted on the public and the insult to injury is the ancillary headaches its creating for possible victims of the mishandled website. It also fulfills the cliche on government competence as if on queue that foreshadows what has yet to come.

As for the Republicans and opposition Theater, most of the republicans leadership just wants to change who the Cronies are that benefit from ACA. So in spite of being handed the full Congress in which stopping ACA unilaterally is well within their power, it marches forward. This is because the leadership is full of Progressives who want to tool it to a slightly different ends from making it benefit their Cronies to having to do with making unemployment more tolerable and enabling black market labor.

Anywho you can snear at Trump, but he is a the byproduct of the rejection of opposition theater which you obviously believe in. A quasi-celebrity buffoon with some person business success is the best a rigged election game will allow for people who are tired of that opposition theater, no one else outside either establishment has a chance. He is what the system created and deserves.

 

[morningreis]

The problem is that ACA was an unpopular as seen by the fact it handed the congress immediately over to the opposing party as fast as elections allowed. It was still foisted on the public and the insult to injury is the ancillary headaches its creating for possible victims of the mishandled website. It also fulfills the cliche on government competence as if on queue that foreshadows what has yet to come.

As for the Republicans and opposition Theater, most of the republicans leadership just wants to change who the Cronies are that benefit from ACA. So in spite of being handed the full Congress in which stopping ACA unilaterally is well within their power, it marches forward. This is because the leadership is full of Progressives who want to tool it to a slightly different ends from making it benefit their Cronies to having to do with making unemployment more tolerable and enabling black market labor.

Anywho you can snear at Trump, but he is a the byproduct of the rejection of opposition theater which you obviously believe in. A quasi-celebrity buffoon with some person business success is the best a rigged election game will allow for people who are tired of that opposition theater, no one else outside either establishment has a chance. He is what the system created and deserves.

I don't understand what you mean by "opposition theater"

 

[lcpiper]

Technically that's true. But Incidents could = Breach or Worse. And when you consider the source and their tendency to nuance their disasters and a media that lets them away with it. It would be unwise to do anything but conclude the worst, if you actually have your data in there. Which we almost all will one way or another in a couple of years.

I am trying to wrap my head around your conclusions.

You are correct, that some number of those incidents may actually reflect breaches, except they said they never lost data. Of course it's possible to have a breach and not loose data, perhaps someone has figured out how to get their foot in the door but can't get to the gold mine, encrypted data at rest or hard zoning, etc.

But what I find odd is that you are reading a report that purposefully fails to tell people what many of us know and said, that incidents are not always breaches. But they hide that nugget for the wow effect, or so they can blatantly mislead ignorant readers.

And you know other reporters wright things just this badly, shamelessly even.

And you rely on that previous reporting to source this opinion "And when you consider the source and their tendency to nuance their disasters and a media that lets them away with it."

And your conclusions actually amount to "the media wasn't misrepresenting things before, they weren't blowing things out of proportion before, even though I can see they do those things.

And, you next leap of logic is that it's the government themselves misrepresenting things because the media allows them to get away with it?


jpm100, I'm just wondering if you are ever going to realize how badly the media is lying to us and pin that tail on the correct donkey.

Understand I am not saying one way or the other about how bad this healthcare.gov website is or how bad the government colors their releases. Without personal experience or an assessment from someone I know and trust, I have no possible way of knowing what things are like.

But I also know I am not going to find out from a writer like this guy cause this AP writer is a lying bitch,
"By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Mar. 23, 2016 2:29 PM EDT"


I would reword your statement;
Technically that's true. Although Incidents could = Breach or Worse, there was no data loss reported and little definition on the nature of these incidents. When you consider the source and their tendency to misrepresent through ignorance or malice how could an informed reader make anything of this report? It would be unwise to do anything from this report other than it's a good thing that the GAO is keeping an eye on things like they are supposed to. At least we aren't hearing about these issues from a whistle-blower or an outside organization.


I understand these are not your words and I am not trying to speak for you. I am just highlighting what I think you are getting from this article opposed to what I am getting from it.