If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard)   Healthcare.gov explicitly states that users "have no reasonable expectation of privacy" for personal data stored in the Obamacare system. Fark: Disclaimer is buried in the source code where normal users won't see it   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 134
    More: PSA, obamacare, data store, normal users, insurance exchange, expectations  
•       •       •

797 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2013 at 7:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-16 11:37:54 PM  
OHHH 
I have heard that phrase before. I am not sure if it came from when I was in the military, or jail. But I remember hearing it.

Farknoodles this is scary.
 
2013-10-16 11:40:30 PM  

rooftop235: OHHH 
I have heard that phrase before. I am not sure if it came from when I was in the military, or jail. But I remember hearing it.

Farknoodles this is scary.


Standard disclaimer on every government website. I see it every day when I log in to my "secure" government workstation.
 
2013-10-16 11:43:41 PM  
Sounds like a cgi job (the contractors for the site, incapable of designing/testing on the one project I dealt with them).
 
2013-10-16 11:43:49 PM  

MrBallou: Standard disclaimer on every government website. I see it every day when I log in to my "secure" government workstation.


I believe I've found the problem.
 
2013-10-16 11:47:15 PM  

Elegy: MrBallou: Standard disclaimer on every government website. I see it every day when I log in to my "secure" government workstation.

I believe I've found the problem.


To elaborate, it's probably in the source code because they reused a chunk of standard code, but if it's not exposed, it's not in effect.
 
2013-10-17 02:23:17 AM  
so they honestly believe that having "have no reasonable expectation of privacy" IN THE FARKING COMPUTER CODE is some sort of legally binding contract??
 
2013-10-17 07:04:08 AM  

log_jammin: so they honestly believe that having "have no reasonable expectation of privacy" IN THE FARKING COMPUTER CODE is some sort of legally binding contract??


Who ya gonna sue?
 
2013-10-17 07:07:19 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: log_jammin: so they honestly believe that having "have no reasonable expectation of privacy" IN THE FARKING COMPUTER CODE is some sort of legally binding contract??

Who ya gonna sue?


My bank. They called me a doody head in my mortgage contract using invisible ink.
 
2013-10-17 07:08:03 AM  
I don't know who looks more desperate.  The author of the article or the person who submitted it with this headline here at fark.  I'm leaning toward the author of the article who, based on their past stories, has had a bad couple of weeks.
 
2013-10-17 07:10:53 AM  
Isn't "no reasonable expectation of privacy" also a term the Supreme Court used to describe every American's life?
 
2013-10-17 07:12:49 AM  

ta: Isn't "no reasonable expectation of privacy" also a term the Supreme Court used to describe every American's life?


yes. but they wrote it in the source code so no one would know.
 
2013-10-17 07:13:52 AM  
Sounds like a copy pasta mistake from the local privacy policy screen.
 
2013-10-17 07:14:49 AM  
Explicitly: Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
 
2013-10-17 07:15:33 AM  

Muta: Isn't "no reasonable expectation of privacy" also a term the Supreme Court used to describe every American's life?


What the court really meant was that no American should have any reasonable expectation of not having his pocket picked at every possible opportunity. Being on the con is the American Life.
 
2013-10-17 07:17:12 AM  
We are going to have to put up with stupid bullshiat stories like this for months.

God, how I really hate stupid people sometimes.
 
2013-10-17 07:20:17 AM  
It's in the XML chunk flagged [bewareoftheleopard].
 
2013-10-17 07:22:43 AM  
Lando Lincoln:
We are going to have to put up with stupid bullshiat stories like this for months.
God, how I really hate stupid people sometimes.


You have to log into the stupid bullshiat government web site to find out what's in it.
 
2013-10-17 07:24:58 AM  
Ok, I don't mean to pick nits, but you can't both give information to the government and expect the government not to have access to said information.

Anything medical is still protected by HIPPA and all the other medical privacy jazz. None of it would be particularly useful in any sort of criminal trial NOT related directly to insurance or insurance rebate fraud.

What's the big deal?

And also, I agree with the posters saying it's probably some reused source code with that part just pushed off the viewable page and not intended to be in effect.
 
2013-10-17 07:25:03 AM  
I have no reasonable expectation of privacy because I use a company computer and resources at work (to Fark, of course) but that's not the same at all. We have special isolated networks for our HR drones to handle our protected information and there is a very reasonable expectation of privacy there.

My company can read this post and even act on it if I were to give away the farm... that's fine with me. In fact, I kinda get turned on by being watched B)
 
2013-10-17 07:25:32 AM  
"In the source code" could mean anything or nothing to people who aren't technologically illiterate idiots.

Sounds like a scary tech buzzword to scare people...the disclosure is coming from INSIDE THE SOURCE CODE!!!!
 
2013-10-17 07:25:36 AM  
A thread to try and distract us from last night?  Meh.
 
2013-10-17 07:27:49 AM  
FTA: An email sent on Thursday, October 10, requesting comment from Department of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for the website, has not yet been returned.

there's no way that letter didn't sound crazy.

"secret messages are hidden in the code!"
 
2013-10-17 07:29:15 AM  
Okay, for starters, it's commented out. No court on Earth would consider that binding. As others have pointed out, it's copypasta. While the offending line should have been removed, there are many reasons (mostly related to laziness or confusion) why it may just be commented out instead.

Second: the warning tells you the government can look at any data you send to Healthcare.gov, and that you cannot expect the Federal government to not use the information you give them for the purpose of securing health care. Which... should be obvious, I would hope.
 
2013-10-17 07:30:02 AM  
Code get's reused all the time and this probably came in with interface code from some other project and was just commented out.

Here's the thing for all you legal geniuses derping it up about this, if the warning isn't presented to the end user and at least tacitly agreed to, it isn't legally binding.
 
2013-10-17 07:30:44 AM  

The Homer Tax: "In the source code" could mean anything or nothing to people who aren't technologically illiterate idiots.

Sounds like a scary tech buzzword to scare people...the disclosure is coming from INSIDE THE SOURCE CODE!!!!


Expect to see it in your inbox with a long series of FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD:
 
2013-10-17 07:31:05 AM  
Just wait until some guys from Anonymous hack into the servers and steals everyone's private data. If the DoD can't protect their data that isn't attached to a public server just imagine what can happen with a system as bug ridden as this is looking to be.

It will happen, and there will be nothing that you can do about it.
 
2013-10-17 07:36:02 AM  

Deneb81: Ok, I don't mean to pick nits, but you can't both give information to the government and expect the government not to have access to said information.


Best kind of incorrect.

If the government is holding a block of encrypted data in escrow they both have the information and don't have access to it. You can bet that if they're interested the NSA is going to have that block of ciphertext chewed on my some codebreaker but. unless they have the key, they both have the information and don't have access to it.
 
2013-10-17 07:41:00 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Just wait until some guys from Anonymous hack into the servers and steals everyone's private data. If the DoD can't protect their data that isn't attached to a public server just imagine what can happen with a system as bug ridden as this is looking to be.

It will happen, and there will be nothing that you can do about it.


I read about this on Facebook too! Then I had to like and share it so all my friends would know, and God would grant one of my wishes, er, prayers!
 
2013-10-17 07:49:23 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Just wait until some guys from Anonymous hack into the servers and steals everyone's private data. If the DoD can't protect their data that isn't attached to a public server just imagine what can happen with a system as bug ridden as this is looking to be.

It will happen, and there will be nothing that you can do about it.


How bug ridden is this system looking to be? All I've heard what that it wasn't properly equipped to handle the initial user load. That's not really a bug, it's just poor planning.

What actual bugs have there been?
 
2013-10-17 07:55:10 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Just wait until some guys from Anonymous hack into the servers and steals everyone's private data


i1.sndcdn.com

Already on the job...

/the password is 'secret'
 
2013-10-17 07:58:11 AM  

log_jammin: so they honestly believe that having "have no reasonable expectation of privacy" IN THE FARKING COMPUTER CODE is some sort of legally binding contract??


You weren't expecting integrity or intelligence out of the weekly substandard were you?

It is kind entertaining watching the derptards get more and more desperate for any shred of validation.
 
2013-10-17 07:58:42 AM  

MrBallou: rooftop235: OHHH 
I have heard that phrase before. I am not sure if it came from when I was in the military, or jail. But I remember hearing it.

Farknoodles this is scary.

Standard disclaimer on every government website. I see it every day when I log in to my "secure" government workstation.


It's designed to be a CYA for government agencies (or any employer) who may or may not spy on its workers to make sure they're doing their job and/or not doing anything nefarious.  Public users (i.e., people buying insurance) should not worry about it.  Should.

/HIPAA would override any CYA banner boilerplate anyway
 
2013-10-17 07:59:47 AM  
Better triple-wrap your head in tin foil
 
2013-10-17 08:02:29 AM  

The Homer Tax: Radioactive Ass: Just wait until some guys from Anonymous hack into the servers and steals everyone's private data. If the DoD can't protect their data that isn't attached to a public server just imagine what can happen with a system as bug ridden as this is looking to be.

It will happen, and there will be nothing that you can do about it.

How bug ridden is this system looking to be? All I've heard what that it wasn't properly equipped to handle the initial user load. That's not really a bug, it's just poor planning.

What actual bugs have there been?


Think about that for a moment:  They didn't properly plan for the number of users that would hit the servers on what is arguably the largest government program to be enacted in recent memory.  So what else might they have not properly planned for?
 
2013-10-17 08:02:58 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Better triple-wrap your head in tin foil


Free upgrades to Saran!
 
2013-10-17 08:03:14 AM  

verbaltoxin: The Homer Tax: "In the source code" could mean anything or nothing to people who aren't technologically illiterate idiots.

Sounds like a scary tech buzzword to scare people...the disclosure is coming from INSIDE THE SOURCE CODE!!!!

Expect to see it in your inbox with a long series of FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD:


I'm surprised I haven't received one yet from my dad ... wait.  ... oh, goddammit!
 
2013-10-17 08:06:01 AM  

dittybopper: The Homer Tax: Radioactive Ass: Just wait until some guys from Anonymous hack into the servers and steals everyone's private data. If the DoD can't protect their data that isn't attached to a public server just imagine what can happen with a system as bug ridden as this is looking to be.

It will happen, and there will be nothing that you can do about it.

How bug ridden is this system looking to be? All I've heard what that it wasn't properly equipped to handle the initial user load. That's not really a bug, it's just poor planning.

What actual bugs have there been?

Think about that for a moment:  They didn't properly plan for the number of users that would hit the servers on what is arguably the largest government program to be enacted in recent memory.  So what else might they have not properly planned for?


People freaking out over how the Obamacare website is all old and busted because it blew up during launch have obviously never tried playing games like Diablo 3 upon release.

f*ck, that sucked ass.
 
2013-10-17 08:07:48 AM  
Wait, so personal information you voluntarily input into a government's website is no longer private? I am outraged. OUTRAGED!!

I still can't friggin believe the government has access to my social security number.
 
2013-10-17 08:08:16 AM  

Alphax: A thread to try and distract us from last night?  Meh.


And TWO Breitbart greens today. Someone is trying to be fair and balanced.
 
2013-10-17 08:08:31 AM  

verbaltoxin: I read about this on Facebook too! Then I had to like and share it so all my friends would know, and God would grant one of my wishes, er, prayers!


If you can't see that the network that they have set up has some huge flaws in it then that's fine, you can go hide your head in the sand. Nothing that is connected to the internet is foolproof. Not even systems put together and then modeled and tested over long periods of time by trained and qualified experts before going live. All it will take is someone finding one exploit that was overlooked and they could get in. This anecdote just highlights how poorly written and reviewed the code that they use actually is. Based upon that I'd guess that there are plenty of cracks in the shell and probably the in the foundations as well considering how many people are having the same problems all over the country.
 
2013-10-17 08:08:45 AM  

winterbraid: FTA: An email sent on Thursday, October 10, requesting comment from Department of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for the website, has not yet been returned.

there's no way that letter didn't sound crazy.

"secret messages are hidden in the code!"


The follow-up letter will sound just as crazy..."Why didn't you respond to me during the government shutdown??? Did you need that time to get your story straight? What are you hiding?"
 
2013-10-17 08:11:10 AM  

xanadian: People freaking out over how the Obamacare website is all old and busted because it blew up during launch have obviously never tried playing games like Diablo 3 upon release.


Yep. Login servers are always unstable the week of a launch. Nobody ever gets it right, even companies that have prior experience running large scale online game launches.
 
2013-10-17 08:11:46 AM  

dittybopper: The Homer Tax: Radioactive Ass: Just wait until some guys from Anonymous hack into the servers and steals everyone's private data. If the DoD can't protect their data that isn't attached to a public server just imagine what can happen with a system as bug ridden as this is looking to be.

It will happen, and there will be nothing that you can do about it.

How bug ridden is this system looking to be? All I've heard what that it wasn't properly equipped to handle the initial user load. That's not really a bug, it's just poor planning.

What actual bugs have there been?

Think about that for a moment:  They didn't properly plan for the number of users that would hit the servers on what is arguably the largest government program to be enacted in recent memory.  So what else might they have not properly planned for?


In other words, you don't know but will derp about it anyway.
 
2013-10-17 08:14:27 AM  

dittybopper: Think about that for a moment:  They didn't properly plan for the number of users that would hit the servers on what is arguably the largest government program to be enacted in recent memory.  So what else might they have not properly planned for?



I know, right? What they should have done is write code for every single event that could ever possibly happen.
 
2013-10-17 08:17:20 AM  
You think a government that is covertly monitoring all your electronic communications respects your privacy? I have some land to sell you.
 
2013-10-17 08:17:25 AM  

Hack Patooey: In other words, you don't know but will derp about it anyway.


Oh, I'm not derping about it.  Just pointing out that they've had a couple years to get it done, and they flubbed the launch, so the record so far isn't all that great.
 
2013-10-17 08:18:19 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: xanadian: People freaking out over how the Obamacare website is all old and busted because it blew up during launch have obviously never tried playing games like Diablo 3 upon release.

Yep. Login servers are always unstable the week of a launch. Nobody ever gets it right, even companies that have prior experience running large scale online game launches.


Or how people are always shocked that the shiny new piece of electronics and technology usually have issues when first released. What, this new item called an iPad has some bugs? Its the end of the world!
 
2013-10-17 08:21:14 AM  

MrBallou: rooftop235: OHHH 
I have heard that phrase before. I am not sure if it came from when I was in the military, or jail. But I remember hearing it.

Farknoodles this is scary.

Standard disclaimer on every government website. I see it every day when I log in to my "secure" government workstation.


Indeed, this was my thought.  In the government, 'consent to be monitored' is the standard, not the exception.  Healthcare.gov would come under a specific set of exemptions making the 'no expectation of privacy' not applicable to that very site, but given how programmers tend to crib, I can see them copying a 'standard set' of disclaimers and commenting out those that don't apply.
 
2013-10-17 08:24:39 AM  
Crybabies.
 
2013-10-17 08:30:05 AM  
Sadly after the past year of revelations, nobody who lives in America has a reasonable expectation of privacy, period.

// Didn't the Supreme Court rule in Roe vs. Wade that there was an implied right to privacy in the Constitution?
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report