"High" Security Risks Plague healthcare.gov

by JASmius

There is a reason why one does not begin construction of a house or an office building with the roof, and of a ship by installing its sails in lieu of its keel.  Similarly, the security features of a website traditionally have been the first order of business in its construction rather than an afterthought.

Except....

A top federal official has admitted that "high" and "moderate" security risks have been discovered on the ObamaCare website in recent weeks, giving credence to months of claims by both experts and users that the site is vulnerable to security breaches.

Teresa Fryer, chief information security officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified about the risks during a December 17th hearing before the House Oversight Committee which has been investigating issues with the troubled site.

"In recent weeks" being the eye-catching phrase in this quote.  The gaping security breaches in healthcare.gov are not a recent discovery, leading to the question: Is this the Regime finally grudgingly admitting these risks, or are these new risks introduced with the so-called "fixes" to previous "glitches"?  I know which way I'm leaning.

Incidentally, you know how you can tell whether or not a Regime hack is or is not under oath?  Take a gander.

IS:

Fryer said that weeks before the debut of HealthCare.gov, she had recommended against its launch, she said, telling her boss that her "evaluation of this was a high risk."

IS NOT:

Federal health officials, however continue to insist the site is safe and that any issues are being quickly addressed.

"Each piece of the live healthcare.gov system that was going into operation October 1st had been tested by an independent security control assessor and testing was completed prior to October 1st, 2013 with no high findings," Joanne Peters, Health and Human Services Department spokeswoman, said this week, according to The Hill.

"All high-, moderate-, and low-security-risk findings… that launched on October 1st were either fixed, or have strategies and plans in place to fix the findings that meet industry standards."

"....continue to insist."  I'm reminded of what Messiah Jesus taught on the subject of swearing oaths:

Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’  But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.

 If you have to "insist" on an assertion, the chances are very favorable that it's phonier that Red Barry's pecs.

Hence...:

But since the Oversight Committee started delving into the security issue, it has produced evidence that the government was aware of high security risks in advance of the launch, and also that final top-to-bottom security tests were never implemented.

I suspect that these security omissions, deficiencies, and "risks" were deliberate, intended as another backdoor evisceration of the Fourth Amendment protection against "The right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...."  And in a worst case scenario of ObamaCare going away, the Democrats would have the consolation of that massive, NSA-like database of Americans' personal information, to be exploited in perpetuity for political and criminal purposes.

Which is why any repeal/replace bill must include a requirement that all personal information supplied to the feds via healthcare.gov or any other means under the auspices of the Unaffordable Care-Less Act must be surrendered and deleted - upon penalty of criminal prosecution.