Again What the "H ", Security Now? Instead of addressing HealthCare gov from a security stan...

[G+_Apollo Lemmon]

Again... What the "H", Security Now? Instead of addressing HealthCare.gov from a security standpoint, we get a crummy commercial for how great the California exchange is? 

 

I'm perplexed by the runaround. If Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson don't think it's newsworthy... just say in response to the original email, "We don't think it's newsworthy," or, "...because of  XYZ, we're not going to cover it." But, first we get an odd excuse that it's "too big a disaster" to cover, and most recently a "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"-style commercial for a completely different entity.

 

Baffling.  

[G+_Neil Sedlak]

I recall some good replies to this same post from last week. The failure of the site is the result of government bureaucracy, failed project management and complex systems integration issues, none of which are the purview of Security Now. Steve is a low level guy, not a systems integrator. Bottom line, what security issues? Did they have a data breach? Was their TNO model flawed? Did they exploit machines that connected to them to help the NSA? No, there is no SN content to this story.

[G+_Jey Gifford]

Neil Sedlak, you are probably right. However, that is not what Leo and Steve said. In refuting the assertion that they were avoiding the story because of their political bent, they stated that the disaster was too big to cover. I've never heard of a news agency refusing to cover a story because it is too big. I can't even wrap my head around why TWiT wouldn't want to break stories on the tech angle of the site.

 

This week's attempt was even worse. How exactly does California's exchange, and the cost savings that Elaine experienced, close the issue of the actual site that has been in the headlines for the last 6 months, with barely more than a peep from TWiT?

 

I would love to know who IS covering the tech angle of healthcare.gov. There is no way on this planet that a goldmine of information, such as the hc.gov, is not experiencing some sort of security issue. And, here's a whopper of a question... If they are not experiencing any security issues, how did they pull that off? I'm sure SN listeners would love to be able to harden themselves against attack in the same way.