Security issues still plague Obamacare site

Rick Moran
In fact, Rep. Mike Rogers believes they are worse today than they were last week.

The Hill:

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) says he's more concerned about HealthCare.gov's problems today than he was last week. 

"It was very clear to me in the hearing that they don't have an overarching solid cybersecurity plan to prevent the loss of private information," he said Sunday morning on CNN's "State of the Union." 

Rogers, who's chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and sat in on the Thursday hearing in which the ObamaCare website contractors testified. 

"I'm even more concerned today than I was last week," he said. 

Host Candy Crowley asked Rogers what he thinks of Department of Health and Human Services officials saying the website will run properly by the end of November. 

 

"This worries me a lot, Candy," he said. "The fact that they have different segments of people controlling information...but they have to store your application at some point. That's a lot of your personal information."

HHS may have to redesign the entire system, Rogers said, because he said it's not secure. 

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday on the website's technical issues. 

"Kathleen Sebelius is obviously not taking accountability for this," said Rep. John Fleming (R-Fla.) on "State of the Union." 

The congressman is among a number of Republican lawmakers calling for her resignation. He said he warned ObamaCare would be harmful from the beginning. 

This is a hacker's dream because the more patches they make to get the site operational, the more vulnerable it becomes and the bigger the security problem.

One assumes that they are also strengthening the security of the site while fixing it, but this is not a prioroty of the government. It's not their info that's at risk. Their overriding concern is to improve the "experience" of users. It wouldn't be surprising if they sacrificed security on the altar of functionality.


In fact, Rep. Mike Rogers believes they are worse today than they were last week.

The Hill:

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) says he's more concerned about HealthCare.gov's problems today than he was last week. 

"It was very clear to me in the hearing that they don't have an overarching solid cybersecurity plan to prevent the loss of private information," he said Sunday morning on CNN's "State of the Union." 

Rogers, who's chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and sat in on the Thursday hearing in which the ObamaCare website contractors testified. 

"I'm even more concerned today than I was last week," he said. 

Host Candy Crowley asked Rogers what he thinks of Department of Health and Human Services officials saying the website will run properly by the end of November. 

 

"This worries me a lot, Candy," he said. "The fact that they have different segments of people controlling information...but they have to store your application at some point. That's a lot of your personal information."

HHS may have to redesign the entire system, Rogers said, because he said it's not secure. 

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday on the website's technical issues. 

"Kathleen Sebelius is obviously not taking accountability for this," said Rep. John Fleming (R-Fla.) on "State of the Union." 

The congressman is among a number of Republican lawmakers calling for her resignation. He said he warned ObamaCare would be harmful from the beginning. 

This is a hacker's dream because the more patches they make to get the site operational, the more vulnerable it becomes and the bigger the security problem.

One assumes that they are also strengthening the security of the site while fixing it, but this is not a prioroty of the government. It's not their info that's at risk. Their overriding concern is to improve the "experience" of users. It wouldn't be surprising if they sacrificed security on the altar of functionality.