CBS: Obama admin ducked final HealthCare.Gov security requirements; problems rolling in

posted at 10:01 am on November 5, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The confidence in their big-government agenda that the Obama administration daily instills in me is truly overwhelming. Via CBS News:

As HealthCare.gov was being developed, crucial tests to ensure the security and privacy of customer information fell behind schedule.

CBS News analysis found that the deadline for final security plans slipped three times from May 6 to July 16. Security assessments to be finished June 7 slid to August 16 and then August 23. The final, required top-to-bottom security tests never got done.

The House Oversight Committee released an Obama administration memo that shows four days before the launch, the government took an unusual step. It granted itself a waiver to launch the website with “a level of uncertainty … deemed as a high (security) risk.”

Agency head Marilyn Tavenner accepted the risk and “mitigation” measures like frequent testing and a dedicated security team. But three other officials signed a statement saying that “does not reduce the risk” of launching October 1.

And in a follow-up this morning, CBS reports on still more technology experts’ concerns over the lack of adequate testing of the website before its launch, and the real-time examples already cropping up even with HealthCare.Gov moving at only partially operational speed. Via the WFB:

As a test, CBS gave one technology expert the real healthcare.gov username of a CBS employee, and within seconds, he identified the specific security question she used to reset her password.

Sean Henry, the former assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, said the security issues need to be taken seriously.

“If somebody’s got the ability to look at a source code and able to reverse-engineer that and identify what somebody’s personal questions are, that should be of concern,” Henry said.

And the hits just keep on coming.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It granted itself a waiver to launch the website with “a level of uncertainty … deemed as a high (security) risk.”

Wow. So when you give the person who makes the rules a piece on the board they will bend said rules to make it so they always “win”.

Who could have seen that coming?

Gatsu on November 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Good news everyone. Obama’s also given himself a competency waiver, which enables him to be considered a successful president without having to deliver any positive results. So . . . success!

SoRight on November 5, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Heh

gophergirl on November 5, 2013 at 10:08 AM

From my friend deaddog.

Bmore on November 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM

No surprise here. King Barack has been granting his administration “waivers” whenever it’s politically convenient.

GarandFan on November 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM

If a private company had been this sloppy with the security of health-related personal information, it would have been subject under HIPAA to civil fines of up to $50,000 per affected user. And if it had been knowingly negligent–if, for example, prosecutors got hold of a memo from the developers warning that the there was a “high security risk”, but the operators launched the site anyway–then the people involved would have faced criminal prosecution and jail sentences of up to five years. So I guess it’s a good thing they issued themselves a waiver.

Fabozz on November 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Do you get a free one year subscription to an identity protection service when you register at Healthcare.gov?

WashJeff on November 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Do you get a free one year subscription to an identity protection service when you register at Healthcare.gov?

WashJeff on November 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Only if you purchased a Unobtainium level plan.

Gatsu on November 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/federal-health-law-may-not-be-a-federal-health-care-program.html

WASHINGTON — The Affordable Care Act is the biggest new health care program in decades, but the Obama administration has ruled that neither the federal insurance exchange nor the federal subsidies paid to insurance companies on behalf of low-income people are “federal health care programs.”

J_Crater on November 5, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Who could have seen that coming?

Gatsu on November 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Helen Keller for one.

Ignoring the evil that is Obamacare for a minute, this is no way to launch anything. They had three years to get it right and they delivered a product that was slapped together at the last minute without any real consideration of potential problems (including security issues).

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Do you get a free one year subscription to an identity protection service when you register at Healthcare.gov?

WashJeff on November 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Lifelock and other identity protection services are going to make a mint off Obamacare. I think security problems will never be fixed because it’s not in Obama’s interest to do so.

Doomberg on November 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Do you get a free one year subscription to an identity protection service when you register at Healthcare.gov?

WashJeff on November 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I know that Adobe is due to their various programs being hacked into and passwords/names/c.c. info taken. They are using Experian.

Experian has knowingly or unknowingly sold their customer data base to an I.D. Theft ring.

In addition, I read somewhere that Experian is one of the Credit Reporting Agencies involved with the Health.gov site.

Buyers beware!!

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Good news everyone. Obama’s also given himself a competency waiver, which enables him to be considered a successful president without having to deliver any positive results. So . . . success!

SoRight on November 5, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Well it is settled then. With the waiver he isn’t among the top four Presidents of all time. He’s solidified his position at the top. Better than Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln. They have to be judged on merit not feelings.

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM

If you like your identity…you can keep your identity…

workingclass artist on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM

O/T Have you seen this?

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

greatest preezy ever…

dpduq on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

OT

Anti-christian bigot HA commenter panther nothing but a democrat propaganda shill.

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian SARVIS in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/

Murphy9 on November 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Murphy9 on November 5, 2013 at 10:24 AM

the government took an unusual step. It granted itself a waiver to launch the website with “a level of uncertainty … deemed as a high (security) risk.

We have a lawless regime. Neither the laws nor the Constitution apply to them. So why should the rest of us not follow suit?

rbj on November 5, 2013 at 10:24 AM

If you like your identity…you can keep your identity…

workingclass artist on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Reminds me of Gov. Kasich: Obama will keep his promise to fund 100% of my Medicaid Expansion.

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM

All your Social Security numbers are belong to us.

slickwillie2001 on November 5, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Another day, another opportunity to say, “I told you so”.

BettyRuth on November 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM

O/T Have you seen this?

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Just heard it on the radio but it isn’t a surprise. The douchebag is only running to peel the votes of stupid needy people away from the GOP. Sarvis supports making VA into a sanctuary state for illegals and wants to tax you for how many miles you drive. But he’s supposedly the answer to extremists like Ken Cuccinelli.

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM

the government took an unusual step. It granted itself a waiver to launch the website with “a level of uncertainty … deemed as a high (security) risk.” Agency head Marilyn Tavenner accepted the risk

I don’t think the agency knows what accepting the risk means. That means that you take on the risk yourself. It doesn’t mean that you force lots of other people to take on the risk.

When Evel Knievel tried to jump the Snake River, he knew he might be injured or killed. He accepted that risk for himself. He didn’t force 30 million other people to go jump the Snake River.

J.S.K. on November 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM

If you like your identity…you can keep your identity…

workingclass artist on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Well, I don’t like my identity. Can I have somebody elses?

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Wanna bet that the woman who has become the face of Obamacare has been placed in a witness protection program by this point?

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Wanna bet that the woman who has become the face of Obamacare has been placed in a witness protection program by this point?

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:31 AM

It’s a safe bet she’s regretting ever signing away the rights to that image.

CurtZHP on November 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Well, I don’t like my identity. Can I have somebody elses?

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Sure, there are some choice I.D. Theft rings! Let your pocketbook be your guide. Costs are based on name only, S.S.#’s, C.C. #’s and so on.

Bronze plan= name only with other plans available:-)

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Joe Biden at the roll out of Obamacare: “This is a big F’ing deal!” It sure is. It will hopefully lead to a new revolution in this country to take these elitists and make sure they are never allowed to desecrate the Constitution again!!

Deano1952 on November 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM

All is well

Lol

cmsinaz on November 5, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Bronze plan= name only with other plans available:-)

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Sweeeet! I think I’ll go with the “quick escape special” aka the gold plan. You never know when a second passport might come in handy. ;0

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM

I agree. It would have been better had this info come out earlier.

Kudos to Mark Levin on his show last night. He spent 2 hours or more on the VA race. Warning everyone about Sarvis & McAuliffe.

He promoted Cuccinelli and did his best to get the truth out about this race.

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:40 AM

know that Adobe is due to their various programs being hacked into and passwords/names/c.c. info taken. They are using Experian.

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Received that letter a few weeks ago, but I already received a free year of identity protection from Advocate Medical since their records were stolen (office broken into).

At least healthcare.gov is making it easy by jsut sending your information to others

WashJeff on November 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

All is well

Lol

cmsinaz on November 5, 2013 at 10:37 AM

More along the lines of “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Well, I don’t like my identity. Can I have somebody elses?

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

I need to become an illegal. They have more rights than taxpaying citizens.

txhsmom on November 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Hmmmmm… if only there was a phrase in common usage to describe a system that was hastily and shoddily put together, with no hope of predictably working but designed to fool people into thinking it might be able to work. If only…

Any ideas? I’m thinking “Barry-rigged”…

JohnGalt23 on November 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Kudos to Mark Levin on his show last night. He spent 2 hours or more on the VA race. Warning everyone about Sarvis & McAuliffe.

He promoted Cuccinelli and did his best to get the truth out about this race.

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Well, his bunker is located in the Commonwealth so he has a dog in this fight.

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM

If you like your social security number, you can keep your social security number … and we’ll share it with anyone else who’d like to have it.

TXUS on November 5, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Who could have seen that coming?

Gatsu on November 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Helen Keller for one.

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:16 AM

LOL

txhsmom on November 5, 2013 at 10:44 AM

It’s pretty clear that the primary intent of HHS and the contractors was achieving the launch date by any and all means possible – and ignoring the key fundamental challenges within the system (as well as the legislation / regulations of the ACA).

With massive security challenges like this, irresponsibly and constantly being downplayed by the political appointees, there is no ‘quick fix’ available. Patching it will not help – and more than likely result in opening up more security gaps that can be exploited.

On top of all of the disasters related to the EpicClusterFark, lack of privacy / personal information security will be one of the key points that will turn the people (and Doctors) against using this site not only now, but when it is advertised as ‘fixed’ – simply because we already know we can’t trust these people.

Athos on November 5, 2013 at 10:44 AM

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Sweeeet! I think I’ll go with the “quick escape special” aka the gold plan. You never know when a second passport might come in handy. ;0

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:40 AM

I’ll see if I can get you a quote. Unlike the Healthcare site, these “choice” sites work!!

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:44 AM

And this is all just the $600,000,000+ website. Just imagine the waste, fraud, and abuse that is to come.

Just imagine.

visions on November 5, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Do you get a free one year subscription to an identity protection service when you register at Healthcare.gov?

WashJeff on November 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Didn’t Obamacare outlaw identity theft protection?

RandallinHerndon on November 5, 2013 at 10:46 AM

If you like your identity…you can keep your identity…

workingclass artist on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Winner, winner, Chicken dinner!!! I nearly spit out my non-Michael Bloomturd approved soda when I read your post.

RandallinHerndon on November 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Received that letter a few weeks ago, but I already received a free year of identity protection from Advocate Medical since their records were stolen (office broken into).

At least healthcare.gov is making it easy by jsut sending your information to others

WashJeff on November 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Sounds like a secure plan, LOL

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Ghostbusters

Schadenfreude on November 5, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Ghostbusters

Schadenfreude on November 5, 2013 at 10:52 AM

:)

youtube comments really are the bottom of the barrel, so many people calling that video racist. lol!

Murphy9 on November 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM

The real story should be what did the Obama administration do to piss off CBS. Everyday it seems like there are three or four stories from them about Obamacare. I haven’t seen anything like this since GW was in office.

tommer74 on November 5, 2013 at 10:56 AM

“Impeachment” may be the only word dirtier than “shutdown” to the GOP these days (and would be a non-starter in Harry Reid’s Senate anyway), but in view of the deliberate clutterfark that’s been foisted upon us by this President, the following from another thread is worth re-posting:

Malfeasance is an impeachable offense. To follow is its definition:

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.

Malfeasance is an affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful. In tort law it is distinct from misfeasance, which is an act that is not illegal but is improperly performed. It is also distinct from Nonfeasance, which is a failure to act that results in injury.

The distinctions between malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance have little effect on tort law. Whether a claim of injury is for one or the other, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached in some way, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff. One exception is that under the law of Strict Liability, the plaintiff need not show the absence of due care. The law of strict liability usually is applied to Product Liability cases, where a manufacturer can be held liable for harm done by a product that was harmful when it was placed on the market. In such cases the plaintiff need not show any actual malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer. A mistake is enough to create liability because the law implies that for the sake of public safety, a manufacturer warrants a product’s safety when it offers the product for sale.

SC.Charlie on November 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

de rigueur on November 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM

The final, required top-to-bottom security tests never got done.

Why does the term “willful negligence” pop into mind?

taznar on November 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Of course the site is not secure. Does anyone who knows anything about SW really believe that this site is built to stand up to cross site scripting, code injection, password cracking, denial of service or any of the attacks that all web sites are exposed to?

Obviously there was nobody in charge of overseeing this development. Anyone who has ever built a complex system knows that integration is always the most difficult part of the process. That unless interfaces are tested early and often the system is guaranteed to fail. That is because the integration step is the part where the ability of humans to communicate clearly, precisely and correctly governs the ability of the components to cooperate. Clue number 1: humans suck at that.

MJBrutus on November 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM

O/T Have you seen this?

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Sarvis, the Libertarian revealed.

RandallinHerndon on November 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM

You can’t make this sh*t up.

jukin3 on November 5, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Well, his bunker is located in the Commonwealth so he has a dog in this fight.

Happy Nomad on November 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM

His bunker is located about 5 miles from my fortress. I’m in Fairfax Co and he’s in Loudon Co, where there are, surprisingly, voting machine malfunctions occurring. I guess the McAwful/Clinton campaign has launched their cyber attack on the voting system.

RandallinHerndon on November 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM

So when these folks have their identities stolen can they sue the government?

neyney on November 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Thanks Erika for highlighting this part of the problem. The administration has forced millions of people into high risk of identity theft nightmares.

ObamaCare ought to offer LifeLock as a side benefit.

MTF on November 5, 2013 at 11:13 AM

So when these folks have their identities stolen can they sue the government?

neyney on November 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM

How will they prove who they are if somebody else is them?

de rigueur on November 5, 2013 at 11:14 AM

“If somebody’s got the ability to look at a source code and able to reverse-engineer that and identify what somebody’s personal questions are, that should be of concern,” Henry said.

Gee, ya think?

mankai on November 5, 2013 at 11:17 AM

I personally know at least 12,642 [fill in your name here].

/Jay Carney responding to ID theft complaints.

mankai on November 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM

If you like your social security number, you can keep your social security number … and we’ll share it with anyone else who’d like to have it.

TXUS on November 5, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Stole that. On facebook now.

katy the mean old lady on November 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Sarvis, the Libertarian revealed.

RandallinHerndon on November 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I think even before this info was revealed that just a wikipedia reading about him would have been suspect.

When Ron Paul came out against Sarvis and endorsed Cuccinelli clinched my suspicions.

I’m in Fairfax Co and he’s in Loudon Co, where there are, surprisingly, voting machine malfunctions occurring.

I hope it backfires on them!

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Why does the term “willful negligence” pop into mind?

taznar on November 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Actually there is a legal term called “reckless disregard.”

Ace ODale on November 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM

SC.Charlie on November 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

de rigueur on November 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Interesting information. Maybe there is more than one way to skin a cat.

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Do not, under any circumstances, have any interaction with this web site or the phone support. Once it sucks you one there will be no escape or remedy.

Leave it alone, work out your own method of self-insuring, and set aside a little cash on the off chance that the IRS dings you with its fine tax.

Ace ODale on November 5, 2013 at 11:39 AM

(Pssst) check out the stock price for LifeLock (“LOCK”) over the past 3 months.

kurtzz3 on November 5, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Impressive. Thanks for the link!

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 11:44 AM

de rigueur on November 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM,

Agreed, until the GOP takes back the Senate.

Further, the concept of impeachment and removal from office was based on a political means to remove an office hold who has breached the duties. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” was meant to include malfeasance, failure to perform the duties of the office, corruption, and other offenses. One need not commit a criminal offense (although some of BHO’s actions are criminal offenses), to be subject to the Constitution’s definition of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

To date, BHO has committed dozens of offenses that rise to the level of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. As the House hearings on F&F, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, DOJ, etc scandals continue on into 2014, we need to tie every Democrat to them and increase our hold in the House and take back the Senate. Then impeach and remove BHO, Holder, Sebelius, and others.

GAlpha10 on November 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM

…four days before the launch, the government took an unusual step. It granted itself a waiver to launch the website with “a level of uncertainty … deemed as a high (security) risk…

You couldn’t make up corruption this pervasive.

Jaibones on November 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Rush just said that if Obama says you like your gun you can keep it, you know he’s lying!!

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 12:07 PM

If somebody’s got the ability to look at a source code and able to reverse-engineer that and identify what somebody’s personal questions are, that should be of concern

- bit it isn’t . . .

williampeck1958 on November 5, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Malfeasance is an impeachable offense.

SC.Charlie on November 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

de rigueur on November 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Why does the term “willful negligence” pop into mind?

taznar on November 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Actually there is a legal term called “reckless disregard.”

Ace ODale on November 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM

“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” was meant to include malfeasance, failure to perform the duties of the office, corruption, and other offenses. One need not commit a criminal offense (although some of BHO’s actions are criminal offenses), to be subject to the Constitution’s definition of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

To date, BHO has committed dozens of offenses that rise to the level of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

GAlpha10 on November 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM

One would like to think that someone, somewhere, is working on this…

de rigueur on November 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I think even before this info was revealed that just a wikipedia reading about him would have been suspect.

When Ron Paul came out against Sarvis and endorsed Cuccinelli clinched my suspicions.

bluefox on November 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM

No doubt. I checked out his website a few months ago, and knew he was a snake in the grass.

RandallinHerndon on November 5, 2013 at 12:41 PM

If you like your identity…you can keep your identity…

workingclass artist on November 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

up to the time the bill was enacted, and after that, it’s a different story.– D. Feinstein

Barnestormer on November 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM

So if we could get the site to work and actually signed up. Then not only do we get to pay a lot more, but we also lose our privacy, and our identity could be stolen.

Socialized medicine sure is great, hun? I really feel sorry for those who could very well die because they are now dumped from their insurance.

This system is cruel, by design. And we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Axion on November 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM

This system is cruel, by design. And we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Axion on November 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Cruel to be kind?

Oh, I can’t take another heartache
Though you say you’re my friend, I’m at my wits end
You say your love is bona fide
But that don’t coincide with the things that you do
And when I ask you to be nice, you say

You gotta be
Cruel to be kind in the right measure
Cruel to be kind it’s a very good sign
Cruel to be kind means that I love you
Baby, you gotta be cruel to be kind

I do my best to understand, dear
But you still mystify and I want to know why
I pick myself up off the ground
To have you knock me back down again and again
And when I ask you to explain, well, you say

You gotta be
Cruel to be kind in the right measure
Cruel to be kind it’s a very good sign
Cruel to be kind means that I love you
Baby, you gotta be cruel to be kind

Well, I do my best to understand, dear
But you still mystify and I want to know why
I pick myself up off the ground
To have you knock me back down again and again
And when I ask you to explain, well, you say

You gotta be
Cruel to be kind in the right measure
Cruel to be kind it’s a very good sign
Cruel to be kind means that I love you
Baby

You gotta be
Cruel to be kind in the right measure
Cruel to be kind it’s a very, very, very good sign
Cruel to be kind that means that I love you
Baby, you gotta be cruel
So, baby, you gotta be cruel
Said, baby, you gotta cruel to be kind

Dedicated to hapless Obamacare enrollees everywhere.

de rigueur on November 5, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Security assessments to be finished June 7 slid to August 16 and then August 23. The final, required top-to-bottom security tests never got done.

Well, duh. Of course they can’t test top-to-bottom security because parts of the top and the middle and the bottom are under constant change and/or are missing.

Let’s put it this way… You can’t crash test a new car model if parts of the chassis and body are missing. Or rather, you CAN, but…

climbnjump on November 5, 2013 at 1:08 PM

de rigueur on November 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM,

I think they are. Many on the right complain that nothing is coming out of the many Congressional Hearings on the many scandals. But they don’t realize that the Hearings are setting the stage for impeachment hearings next year and beyond. All Congress can do through the Hearings process is investigate. Other than finding a witness in Contempt of Congress when a lie is revealed (and then if you can the DOJ to prosecute), the function of the Hearing to to get the facts on the table. It is my belief that Issa, et al, have the all the evidence they need, obtained through “back channels”. However, the evidence must be produced under subpeona or witness testimony to be admissible. The administration is doing whatever they can to suppress the evidence (by claiming Executive Privilage, and refusing to provide documents) to prevent the Hearing to reach the conclusion that BHO’s fingerprints are all over F&F, Benghazi, NSA spying on Americans, IRS targeting, etc.

I believe that there are staffers compiling all the evidence for impeachment proceedings once the GOP takes back the Senate. Until that happens, we shouldn’t start the proceedings. All the left will do is claim the GOP in Congress is racist for trying to impeach the first half-black President. But when the GOP control of both the House and Senate, and all the evidence of illegal or un-Constitutional actions are presented, it will make the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings seem like child’s play.

GAlpha10 on November 5, 2013 at 1:33 PM

You can’t secure a site which is made up of pages which are not even valid web pages!!!

TEST: 1. Go to the site validator.w3.org
2. Enter the address of the Obamacare site: healthcare.gov

Then note the long list of errors, and the notes which tell you that the Validator has given up on a portion of the page, because the high-level flaws need to be fixed before the Validator can even check the rest of the page!!

…and this is JUST THE MAIN PAGE!!!! Imagine how many errors are in the whole web site!!!

CONCLUSIONS:
1. You should NOT expect consistent results from healthcare.gov from browser to browser version, OS to OS version, or from one day to the next. The site is a complete mess, and does not conform to standards sufficiently to support ANY version of ANY available browser and/or OS version.

2. You should enter personal data into healthcare.gov ONLY if you are comfortable sharing that data with every scammer and identity thief in the world!!!

landlines on November 5, 2013 at 3:57 PM

PS -

If a private web site was as flawed as healthcare.gov, the owner of the site would be required (in most states) to provide users with identity theft remediation services for an extended period of time…in addition to possible fines and monetary damages.

Is there an “Office of Identity Theft” within HHS??? Or do they officially “not give a damn” whether you are wiped out by thieves?

landlines on November 5, 2013 at 4:02 PM