Obamacare Website: You Have No Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy, Says Hidden Source Code
Texas Rep. Joe Barton questions an Obamacare contractor about the bit in the source code and whether it should be a "reasonable expectation," that you give up your privacy to sign up for Obamacare -- contrary to HIPAA privacy rules:
(CMS is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.)
The line: "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system."
More on this here, at Christian Science Monitor, by Mark Trumbull:
Some technology experts, however, said it's not unusual for source code to contain extraneous verbiage that's not relevant or intended to be read by users. The Weekly Standard article itself referred to the no-privacy statement as something "not visible to users and obviously not intended as part of the terms and conditions" for use of the website.
Well, then, why is it there at all?
Or was it.
Supposedly, the code has been removed, according to the Weekly Standard, which first reported on this:
Wednesday, Rep. Barton took up the question with Sebelius, the head of Health and Human Services (HHS) of which CMS is a part. The Washington Free Beacon reported on Sebelius's response:"It is my understanding that that is boilerplate language that should not have been in this particular contract because there are -- the highest security standards in place and people have every right to expect privacy," Sebelius said to Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas).Sebelius assured Barton that the language would be removed saying, "we have had those discussions with CGI [Federal] and it is underway. I do absolutely commit to protecting the privacy of the American public and we have asked them to remove that statement."
Sebelius's response is a tacit admission from the federal government that the inclusion of the statement posed a legitimate privacy concern, a position not shared by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) who uttered his widely reported "monkey court" remark in response to Rep. Barton's inquiry at last week's hearing.
The thing is, even accidentally included code can be used against you. From what I've been reading (and blogging about lately), I find using these government-run ACA websites worrisome in terms of protecting oneself from both the government and hackers seeking your information so they can steal your identity.
I laughed when he said his Democrat friends care about privacy.
As to his main question, about Hippa compliance, I don't know the law, not a lawyer, but it was written by lawyers and politicians, who care more about CYA, the letter of the law, and labels than any common sense or logic. SO Yeah I could see it being Hippa compliant. If Hippa says something like: if it doesn't protect you must have a warning label saying in effect "Privacy? Ha no Privacy here. " So a warning label is there, on the page, just not in a normally visible way. Which my guess probably satisfies gov't made regulations.
Joe J at November 27, 2013 7:50 AM
I'm sure HIPPA doesn't actually apply to the federal government.
Just like so many other laws don't apply, like Sarbanes-Oxley or any of the ones dealing with accounting.
Besides, I'm sure Deer Leader will just grant them an exemption if it happens to be relevant.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 27, 2013 10:27 AM
So wait... was this something in the fine print that was presented to users of the Web site, or was it something buried in a comment in the source code?
Cousin Dave at November 27, 2013 11:34 AM
No idea, Dave, but doesn't it feel like something a disgruntled programmer might leave in a comment?
NicoleK at November 27, 2013 11:43 AM
"Well, then, why is it there at all?"
Because of how code is built these days.
It's very difficult to start from scratch and write all the code that works on some target operating system as well as literally the code that builds the code (known as "make files" and other configuration files).
So Programmer Jane starts off Project HealthCare by copying wholesale everything from the project she just came off of, Project ClimateChange, even if that was for a completely different company, or government agency, even if it was for a completely different sort of system in the long run (healthcare versus climate change).
Because she is familiar with the code in the last project, and because she knows it runs well, and because she knows she can get it to build.
Often when you see programming examples in books or in media it's a program of 5, 10, 20 lines.
But these systems are hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions of lines.
They cannot be built from scratch.
You take systems that work and throw them together and then sculpt out the system you are looking for.
Code that has been commented out is not code. Literally. It was a fragment from a prior project.
At best, it's ignorant to make this any sort of focus of poutrage. There are a ton more flaws with Obamacare than that.
jerry at November 27, 2013 11:49 AM
So were supposed to believe Sebelius now, after the rollout under her care was so disastrous?
Why should I believe anything that woman has to say now?
Radwaste at November 27, 2013 12:04 PM
Sebelius: "...I do absolutely commit to protecting the privacy of the American public..."
Her words have no value.
Considering the blatant deceit employed in perpetrating the ACA fraud, how could anyone believe anything Sebelius or the administration has to say about it? No matter what they say, unless you can verify it through some other reliable source you still don't know any more than before you asked. Why even bother to ask?
Ken R at November 27, 2013 12:28 PM
"So were supposed to believe Sebelius now, after the rollout under her care was so disastrous?"
No, and it's pretty incredible that anyone's still talking about believing her, or anyone else involved. A flop of this magnitude in the private sector could destroy a large company, but the federal government faces no similar consequences. The Affordable Care Act doesn't appear to deliver on its promises, and we're supposed to take it on faith that somehow it will all work. It was grossly irresponsible for the Congress to pass it, for the President to sign it, for the HHS to attempt implementation, and for the people to believe in it.
There, I feel better now.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at November 27, 2013 12:30 PM
NSA 'planned to discredit radicals over web-porn use'
You're next, ya pervos and independent voters!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 27, 2013 5:32 PM
Leave a comment