Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Capitol City Project)   Meanwhile, in other news that should sit well with everyone, a confidential Obamacare training manual released online. Fark: The awesome security of the "Marketplace" enables anyone to Google the document and download it yourself   (capitolcityproject.com) divider line 68
    More: Interesting, obamacare, training manual, Google, Navigator SOP, Obamacare training, Urban League, standard procedures, Kathleen Sebelius  
•       •       •

732 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2013 at 1:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-16 12:45:22 PM  
This just keeps getting betterer and betterer.
 
2013-12-16 01:04:13 PM  
But WHY is it confidential? What SECRETS of the Socialist Takeover Master Plan are outlined in there? WHAT is OBongo hiding?

The only incompetence here is whoever left what should have been made a public document marked "confidential".
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-16 01:08:40 PM  
Considering that these Navigators are volunteers and not people with security clearances or even federal employees doesn't that imply that it wasn't "confidential" at all?

And given the fact that it's a right wing blog, doesn't that imply that the warning isn't even there at all?


/BTW: Your blog sucks.
 
2013-12-16 01:46:21 PM  
So this means just anyone can find out how to explain to other people how to do get insurance? With this in their hands we'll never be able to stop the terrorists.  It will be Benghazi seven days a week in every town in America.
 
2013-12-16 01:49:57 PM  
So it is the Right Wing's fault that the Libtards can't follow their own instructions and keep the document confidential.

Geez, Libtards will do anything to try and avoid blame for what they do wrong.
 
2013-12-16 01:54:12 PM  
I guess Mark Twain was right.
 
2013-12-16 01:55:31 PM  
"INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW: This information has not been publicly disclosed and may be privileged and confidential. It is for internal government use only and must not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive the information. Unauthorized disclosure may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law."

And CMS just puts it online without any security for anyone to see.  But don't worry about your personal information.  I'm sure that is safeguarded.
 
2013-12-16 01:57:04 PM  

vpb: doesn't that imply that the warning isn't even there at all?


if only there was some way to verify that.
 
2013-12-16 02:01:06 PM  
A blog written by MRC rejects, hooray
 
2013-12-16 02:02:48 PM  
That is a public record, you dummies!
 
2013-12-16 02:02:59 PM  

SlothB77: "INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW: This information has not been publicly disclosed and may be privileged and confidential. It is for internal government use only and must not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive the information. Unauthorized disclosure may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law."

And CMS just puts it online without any security for anyone to see.  But don't worry about your personal information.  I'm sure that is safeguarded.


I'm reading this right now, so I'm really getting a kick out of this response...  (warning:  PDF, may break your dialup connection if you have one)
 
2013-12-16 02:03:52 PM  

pootsie: That is a public record, you dummies!


Probably written by the same people who recycled the healthcare.gov source code (or however that confidentiality warning got in there).
 
2013-12-16 02:04:18 PM  
"Breitbart News obtained an early copy of a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee report on Obamacare Navigators that documents Navigators encouraging fraud."

I'm just going to assume that the actual transcripts read:

Person: If I say I don't smoke, can I get better insurance rates.
Navigator: I strongly encourage you NOT to lie on these forms in order to get lower rates. Doing so could lead to a massive fine, or time in jail.

And the Breitbart report reads:

Navigator: I strongly encourage you.. to lie on these forms in order to get lower rates. Doing so could lead to a... fine... time.
 
2013-12-16 02:07:07 PM  
OOOH!

I predict reasoned and unbiased discussions ITT

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-16 02:07:33 PM  
static3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-12-16 02:08:11 PM  
Meh.
 
2013-12-16 02:08:31 PM  

SlothB77: "INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW: This information has not been publicly disclosed and may be privileged and confidential. It is for internal government use only and must not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive the information. Unauthorized disclosure may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law."

And CMS just puts it online without any security for anyone to see.  But don't worry about your personal information.  I'm sure that is safeguarded.


If you search for the phrase "INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW," Google pulls up 15,800 results, all of which (from clicking through the first few pages of results) appear to be mundane, non-sensitive CMS documents, all of which contain the full disclaimer you quote above.  It looks like a standard disclaimer that appears at the bottom of documents prepared by CMS, regardless of whether the documents are, in fact, privileged or confidential.  Sort of like how most law firm email systems add a "This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential . . ." type disclaimer to every email, regardless of content.

There's no security breach here, just an overuse of disclaimer language.
 
2013-12-16 02:08:51 PM  

TwoHead: So this means just anyone can find out how to explain to other people how to do get insurance? With this in their hands we'll never be able to stop the terrorists.  It will be Benghazi seven days a week in every town in America.


With a side of homoabortion!
 
2013-12-16 02:09:57 PM  

nmrsnr: "Breitbart News obtained an early copy of a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee report on Obamacare Navigators that documents Navigators encouraging fraud."

I'm just going to assume that the actual transcripts read:

Person: If I say I don't smoke, can I get better insurance rates.
Navigator: I strongly encourage you NOT to lie on these forms in order to get lower rates. Doing so could lead to a massive fine, or time in jail.

And the Breitbart report reads:

Navigator: I strongly encourage you.. to lie on these forms in order to get lower rates. Doing so could lead to a... fine... time.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-16 02:11:08 PM  
Unleash the White Knight O BattalionTM!

Leave no critic unpunished! Let no criticism stand! Declare this and all other examples of government ineptitude to be inconsequential, irrelevant, and unfounded! impugn the motives and character of anyone who would dare point out that an obvious fark-up is an obvious fark-up!

After all, everyone knows that imperfect is the same as flawed!!!
 
2013-12-16 02:12:19 PM  

El_Perro: SlothB77: "INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW: This information has not been publicly disclosed and may be privileged and confidential. It is for internal government use only and must not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive the information. Unauthorized disclosure may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law."

And CMS just puts it online without any security for anyone to see.  But don't worry about your personal information.  I'm sure that is safeguarded.

If you search for the phrase "INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW," Google pulls up 15,800 results, all of which (from clicking through the first few pages of results) appear to be mundane, non-sensitive CMS documents, all of which contain the full disclaimer you quote above.  It looks like a standard disclaimer that appears at the bottom of documents prepared by CMS, regardless of whether the documents are, in fact, privileged or confidential.  Sort of like how most law firm email systems add a "This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential . . ." type disclaimer to every email, regardless of content.

There's no security breach here, just an overuse of disclaimer language.


It's probably boilerplate, and most likely something that could be obtained via FOIA request even if it hadn't been disseminated already and you wanted to get your hands on a copy. But, it's a tad amusing. Not a scandal. Not an indictment of the ACA, the Administration, and America as a whole. Just a bit amusing.
 
2013-12-16 02:14:25 PM  

El_Perro: There's no security breach here, just an overuse of disclaimer language.

El_Perro: Sort of like how most law firm email systems add a "This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential . . ." type disclaimer to every email, regardless of content.


True. However in this instance, the Navigators refused to provide information to the person asking questions citing that it was confidential.

So either it is NOT confidential, and the Navigators were withholding information the public is legally entitled to, or the public is not entitled to this confidential information and there is lax control.

Which do you prefer?
 
2013-12-16 02:14:31 PM  
The Capitol City Project?? What the hell kinda blog is that?

It sounds like a quest in Fallout 3.  Should I be stockpiling Stimpaks?
 
2013-12-16 02:14:51 PM  

SlothB77: "INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW:


You also can't remove a mattress tag UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.
 
2013-12-16 02:15:50 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: OOOH!

I predict reasoned and unbiased discussions ITT

[i.imgur.com image 243x310]


I don't think that's going to be enough popcorn.
 
2013-12-16 02:18:29 PM  

someonelse: You also can't remove a mattress tag UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.


Unless you are the end purchaser, of course.
 
2013-12-16 02:22:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Unleash the White Knight O BattalionTM!

Leave no critic unpunished! Let no criticism stand! Declare this and all other examples of government ineptitude to be inconsequential, irrelevant, and unfounded! impugn the motives and character of anyone who would dare point out that an obvious fark-up is an obvious fark-up!

After all, everyone knows that imperfect is the same as flawed!!!


Or do the exact opposite and pretend you're above it all!
 
2013-12-16 02:23:13 PM  

The Numbers: Satan's Bunny Slippers: OOOH!

I predict reasoned and unbiased discussions ITT

[i.imgur.com image 243x310]

I don't think that's going to be enough popcorn.


*sigh*

I know.

What if I made it cuter?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-16 02:28:50 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: El_Perro: There's no security breach here, just an overuse of disclaimer language.
El_Perro: Sort of like how most law firm email systems add a "This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential . . ." type disclaimer to every email, regardless of content.

True. However in this instance, the Navigators refused to provide information to the person asking questions citing that it was confidential.

So either it is NOT confidential, and the Navigators were withholding information the public is legally entitled to, or the public is not entitled to this confidential information and there is lax control.

Which do you prefer?



That a person who is not trained in the intricacies of FOIA requests and the like refrain from making the call?
 
2013-12-16 02:31:02 PM  

sdd2000: BojanglesPaladin: El_Perro: There's no security breach here, just an overuse of disclaimer language.
El_Perro: Sort of like how most law firm email systems add a "This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential . . ." type disclaimer to every email, regardless of content.

True. However in this instance, the Navigators refused to provide information to the person asking questions citing that it was confidential.

So either it is NOT confidential, and the Navigators were withholding information the public is legally entitled to, or the public is not entitled to this confidential information and there is lax control.

Which do you prefer?


That a person who is not trained in the intricacies of FOIA requests and the like refrain from making the call?


He doesn't want sensible solutions.
 
2013-12-16 02:31:54 PM  
Yep, boilerplate content generating the warning, that is, in fact, not applicable to governmental operations, and would be available under the FOIA, if you so chose.


Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, if you can see something unusual, and not leap to "massive conspiracy" you're probably not a member of the modern right wing.
 
2013-12-16 02:34:28 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: El_Perro: There's no security breach here, just an overuse of disclaimer language.
El_Perro: Sort of like how most law firm email systems add a "This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential . . ." type disclaimer to every email, regardless of content.

True. However in this instance, the Navigators refused to provide information to the person asking questions citing that it was confidential.

So either it is NOT confidential, and the Navigators were withholding information the public is legally entitled to, or the public is not entitled to this confidential information and there is lax control.

Which do you prefer?


You are speaking of "the Navigators" as though (1) they are some monolithic entity and (2) they are employed by the govt.  Neither is true.  What is most likely, in this case, is that the particular Navigators the person was speaking to saw the disclaimer, believed the document was confidential, and declined to provide the document.  Nothing nefarious.
 
2013-12-16 02:41:31 PM  

El_Perro: What is most likely, in this case, is that the particular Navigators the person was speaking to saw the disclaimer, believed the document was confidential, and declined to provide the document. Nothing nefarious.



I didn't say there was nefarious intent, nor did I suggest that Navigators are monolithic or directly employed by the government. I think most of us know they are minimally trained independent contractors (and we all know about contractors and government document security nowadays). I referenced this individual circumstance. I said there was a screwup.

Either it was mislabeled as confidential, and is supposed to be public (In which case the Navigator should have provided the document to the inquiring citizen), or it was correctly labeled as confidential and should not be freely available online through a Google search, and someone is careless with confidential government documents.
 
2013-12-16 02:46:54 PM  
They failed to make a mountain out of a molehill. How will their paymasters punish them?
 
2013-12-16 02:46:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: El_Perro: What is most likely, in this case, is that the particular Navigators the person was speaking to saw the disclaimer, believed the document was confidential, and declined to provide the document. Nothing nefarious.


I didn't say there was nefarious intent, nor did I suggest that Navigators are monolithic or directly employed by the government. I think most of us know they are minimally trained independent contractors (and we all know about contractors and government document security nowadays). I referenced this individual circumstance. I said there was a screwup.

Either it was mislabeled as confidential, and is supposed to be public (In which case the Navigator should have provided the document to the inquiring citizen), or it was correctly labeled as confidential and should not be freely available online through a Google search, and someone is careless with confidential government documents.


You left out other possibilities, such as at one time it was confidential and no longer is confidential. Your statement appears to clearly point out a nefarious intent and you should not be able to use the Megyn Kelly (it was just a joke and/or taken out of context) defense that easily.
 
2013-12-16 02:48:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Either it was mislabeled as confidential, and is supposed to be public (In which case the Navigator should have provided the document to the inquiring citizen), or it was correctly labeled as confidential and should not be freely available online through a Google search, and someone is careless with confidential government documents.


Or, as others have already pointed out, it was mislabeled as confidential (using boilerplate disclaimers), but the Navigator was not right person to determine that it was mislabeled and release it to the public.
 
2013-12-16 02:49:02 PM  

El_Perro: BojanglesPaladin: El_Perro: There's no security breach here, just an overuse of disclaimer language.
El_Perro: Sort of like how most law firm email systems add a "This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential . . ." type disclaimer to every email, regardless of content.

True. However in this instance, the Navigators refused to provide information to the person asking questions citing that it was confidential.

So either it is NOT confidential, and the Navigators were withholding information the public is legally entitled to, or the public is not entitled to this confidential information and there is lax control.

Which do you prefer?

You are speaking of "the Navigators" as though (1) they are some monolithic entity and (2) they are employed by the govt.  Neither is true.  What is most likely, in this case, is that the particular Navigators the person was speaking to saw the disclaimer, believed the document was confidential, and declined to provide the document.  Nothing nefarious.


One thing's for sure: something like this would never, ever, ever happen in the private sector, where customer service is a beacon of freedom and transparency.
 
2013-12-16 02:50:34 PM  
El_Perro:

You are speaking of "the Navigators" as though (1) they are some monolithic entity and (2) they are employed by the govt.  Neither is true.

Paid "Navigators" do exist. True, they are not federal employees, but their compensation is funded by Fed grants and they're out selling the Fed's goals. So to completely excuse them as "nothing to do with the administration" is maybe a touch disingenuous. Still has to be some accountability somewhere.

(Though this erstwhile confidential document seems much ado about nothing.)
 
2013-12-16 02:53:43 PM  

sdd2000: BojanglesPaladin: El_Perro: What is most likely, in this case, is that the particular Navigators the person was speaking to saw the disclaimer, believed the document was confidential, and declined to provide the document. Nothing nefarious.


I didn't say there was nefarious intent, nor did I suggest that Navigators are monolithic or directly employed by the government. I think most of us know they are minimally trained independent contractors (and we all know about contractors and government document security nowadays). I referenced this individual circumstance. I said there was a screwup.

Either it was mislabeled as confidential, and is supposed to be public (In which case the Navigator should have provided the document to the inquiring citizen), or it was correctly labeled as confidential and should not be freely available online through a Google search, and someone is careless with confidential government documents.

You left out other possibilities, such as at one time it was confidential and no longer is confidential. Your statement appears to clearly point out a nefarious intent and you should not be able to use the Megyn Kelly (it was just a joke and/or taken out of context) defense that easily.


So mislabelled as confidential then? I don't see an automatic implication of nefarious intent in what Bojangles wrote, and as for that bit about Megyn Kelly - wtf are you on about?
 
2013-12-16 02:55:24 PM  

El_Perro: SlothB77: "INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW: This information has not been publicly disclosed and may be privileged and confidential. It is for internal government use only and must not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive the information. Unauthorized disclosure may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law."

And CMS just puts it online without any security for anyone to see.  But don't worry about your personal information.  I'm sure that is safeguarded.

If you search for the phrase "INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW," Google pulls up 15,800 results, all of which (from clicking through the first few pages of results) appear to be mundane, non-sensitive CMS documents, all of which contain the full disclaimer you quote above.  It looks like a standard disclaimer that appears at the bottom of documents prepared by CMS, regardless of whether the documents are, in fact, privileged or confidential.  Sort of like how most law firm email systems add a "This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential . . ." type disclaimer to every email, regardless of content.

There's no security breach here, just an overuse of disclaimer language.


I'm not sure this helps your argument or hurts it.
 
2013-12-16 02:56:44 PM  
At least this Obamacare flaw doesn't erroneously debit your bank account.
 
2013-12-16 02:58:34 PM  

qorkfiend: One thing's for sure: something like this would never, ever, ever happen in the private sector, where customer service is a beacon of freedom and transparency.


I suspect that it would. However, that has no bearing on whether something got screwed up here.

sdd2000: Your statement appears to clearly point out a nefarious intent


No it does not. What would be the purpose of this eeeevil intent you wish for me to advocate?

There is none. It's a simple (and relatively trivial one) cock-up.
 
2013-12-16 03:00:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: One thing's for sure: something like this would never, ever, ever happen in the private sector, where customer service is a beacon of freedom and transparency.

I suspect that it would. However, that has no bearing on whether something got screwed up here.

sdd2000: Your statement appears to clearly point out a nefarious intent

No it does not. What would be the purpose of this eeeevil intent you wish for me to advocate?

There is none. It's a simple (and relatively trivial one) cock-up.


So was a trivial screw-up, and not to be taken seriously. The Kelly defense? and I guess you are the victim here.
 
2013-12-16 03:02:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: One thing's for sure: something like this would never, ever, ever happen in the private sector, where customer service is a beacon of freedom and transparency.

I suspect that it would. However, that has no bearing on whether something got screwed up here.


I didn't say it did; I'm simply pointing out that customer service screwups are a fairly routine occurrence.
 
2013-12-16 03:04:37 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Numbers: Satan's Bunny Slippers: OOOH!
I predict reasoned and unbiased discussions ITT
[i.imgur.com image 243x310]

I don't think that's going to be enough popcorn.
*sigh*
I know.
What if I made it cuter?
[i.imgur.com image 320x222]


What kind of satanic creature walks through rocks?
 
2013-12-16 03:06:05 PM  

SlothB77: At least this Obamacare flaw doesn't erroneously debit your bank account.


"Shannon and Josh Bruner claimed the Washington Healthplanfinder website debited their premium two weeks too early.
The Healthplanfinder staff investigated their case and could find no problems with the payment system, and that their records show the Bruners scheduled the earlier date as their payment date.
A spokesperson says enrollees received several email notifications to confirm the payment date for their premiums, but admits that because the site has been down for much of last week, that it would have been difficult for any enrollee to login to read those messages.
The finance department is willing to work with the couple to provide a refund if necessary."

Everybody panic.
 
2013-12-16 03:14:02 PM  

qorkfiend: I didn't say it did; I'm simply pointing out that customer service screwups are a fairly routine occurrence.


Then we are in agreement. Though there is an assumption that this documentation is SUPPOSED to be public. I don't know that we actually know that at all.

sdd2000: So was a trivial screw-up, and not to be taken seriously. The Kelly defense? and I guess you are the victim here.


I have no clue what you are on about or what role you are trying to convince yourself I am in your little fantasy world, but let me be the first to congratulate you on successfully auditioning for membership in the White Knight O Battalion TM. You are following the manual perfectly.
 
2013-12-16 03:16:57 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Numbers: Satan's Bunny Slippers: OOOH!
I predict reasoned and unbiased discussions ITT
[i.imgur.com image 243x310]

I don't think that's going to be enough popcorn.
*sigh*
I know.
What if I made it cuter?
[i.imgur.com image 320x222]

What kind of satanic creature walks through rocks?


upload.wikimedia.org  ?
 
2013-12-16 03:29:41 PM  

SlothB77: But don't worry about your personal information. I'm sure that is safeguarded.


You mean the personal information that the government already has? That information?
 
2013-12-16 03:30:40 PM  

SlothB77: At least this Obamacare flaw doesn't erroneously debit your bank account.


I've PEROSNALLY had erroneous charges from private companies and so have lots more people, do you think then private companies should be shut down too?
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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