Since computer security experts told a House committee in November that the HealthCare.gov website should more accurately be called “IdentityTheft.gov,” the Obama administration has proclaimed the site (once again) to be fixed.
Not so, according to the CEO of the online security firm TrustedSec, which provided lawmakers with a 17-page report highlighting the website's weaknesses. In fact, the site today is probably a worse identity-theft risk for users, says David Kennedy.
“When you recode the application to fix these 400 bugs ... you're introducing more security flaws as you go along with it because you don't even check that code,” says Mr. Kennedy, a former U.S. Marine Corps cyber intelligence analyst.
None of the website's security flaws has been addressed, Kennedy tells The Washington Free Beacon. In his testimony before Congress, Kennedy estimated it would take seven to 12 months to fix those problems — and that's with HealthCare.gov shut down, according to Forbes.
The alternative is to trust one's personal information to ObamaCare's “navigators,” who for reasons unexplained do not undergo background checks.
Buying health insurance while protecting one's personal information from identify thieves shouldn't be a leap of faith. Nor should Americans be forced to comply on nothing more credible than the government's flimsy assurances that its problem-plagued website now is secure.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sunday pops
- EPA diktats: Pushing back
- The Box
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Kittanning Laurels & Lances
- Jamestown revealed: History comes alive
- Saturday essay: Garden chances
- Regional growth
- The Thursday wrap
- The Connellsville Redevelopment Authority: Facts & findings
- Medicare @ 50: Sick, getting sicker