Report: US Government Worse Than All Major Industries On Cyber Security (reuters.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. federal, state and local government agencies rank in last place in cyber security when compared against 17 major private industries, including transportation, retail and healthcare, according to a new report released Thursday. The analysis, from venture-backed security risk benchmarking startup SecurityScorecard, measured the relative security health of government and industries across 10 categories, including vulnerability to malware infections, exposure rates of passwords and susceptibility to social engineering, such as an employee using corporate account information on a public social network. Educations, telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries also ranked low, the report found. Information services, construction, food and technology were among the top performers. And we are supposed to trust them with healthcare? This report comes after President Obama recently unveiled a commission of private, public and academic experts to bolster the U.S. cyber security sector.

Comments

Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

The line

And we are supposed to trust them with healthcare?

Is beyond absurd. Anyone who read the slightest bit of the Affordable Care Act knows that it does not put government in charge of health care. In fact, it did almost exactly the opposite of that and gave the insurance industry - which was already disgustingly powerful - even more power. The only function of healthcare.gov is to connect the (now obligate) consumer with a company who will sell them a policy.

In other words the ACA is a license for the health insurance industry to print money. They quite nearly had it before, but now it has been fully formalized.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

It's that many Democrats want to give control of healthcare to the government.

First of all, that is a pointless claim for several reasons. One, it is pointless because it won't happen. Two, it is a pointless claim because there are no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government".

Second, what do you even mean by "give control of healthcare to the government"? Even the most socialized of all medical systems still give the physicians at least as much autonomy as our system does.

In other words, you are just parroting standard slashdot conservative FUD.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how bad of a job the medical cartel has done, we need to have the government to look after us.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. It couldn't get worse.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

I support single-payer which would give the government control over expenses. There's no reason to allow all of the ridiculous expensive tests we have now.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some plans make doctors employees of the state which would finally make them accountable, but of course republicans oppose accountability.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is why it is critical we have more government control of healthcare.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the point, do you trust the government with the best and brightest of the employees? Do you trust the government with the best in policies? Or the best in wages? Can they have the best hardware and the most secure programs? And are you ready, are you willing to pay for it.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would great. 80% of the money is wasted on 10% of the people. Spending needs to be made more fair.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the vast majority of money is spent on a tiny portion of rich people. We need treatment to be more fairly distributed.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[tnk1]

One, it is pointless because it won't happen. Two, it is a pointless claim because there are no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government".
 

I have two words for you: "Bernie Sanders"

Yes, I don't think he's going to win, but it isn't impossible. You don't think he wants single payer health care? How is that precisely going to work without the government pretty much owning it?

And, he's just the tip of that spear. Government is the solution to all of our problems, if you're young and can't see what the government does with just about every other program. Lack of security is just a minor annoyance compared to the bureaucratic cock-up that we're looking forward to. The ACA is just the government doing what the government does best, fucking up. Political solutions where half-measures simply won't do.

And no, this is about security, not physician choice. And physicians fucking suck at security, or have we not been reading the news? They also suck at bureaucracy, and also at not charging an arm and a leg for their services.

At least they'll make the 1% pay for it, or something. That'll show those rich bastards.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

One, it is pointless because it won't happen. Two, it is a pointless claim because there are no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government".

I have two words for you: "Bernie Sanders"

So which do you understand less well then, healthcare control, or Bernie Sanders? Clearly you don't understand either very well that you try to place the two in the same boat.

Let's establish an important fact here - especially since your comment is woefully lacking in facts. Single-payer health care does not mean the government tells your doctor what to do. It does not mean there is a bureaucrat in the office with you second guessing every decision your physician makes. What it does mean is that everyone has the same base level of care (which is currently a completely alien concept in the US) and the government sets the rates they will pay for certain things. You want other things? You can go buy them yourself.

More to the point though, Sanders can't pull off single payer, at least not any time soon. If the DNC would allow him to be the nominee (which they won't) he would wipe the floor with any GOP candidate in the general election (as every single national poll from every single polling group or company has shown). However, President Sanders would still encounter too much GOP opposition in congress to pull off single payer. He can't make it happen simply as a product of his own will.

The ACA is just the government doing what the government does best, fucking up

The ACA is the largest corporate handout in the history of government, period. With the ACA the federal government gave the health insurance industry a license to print money and made us all obligate consumers of their shitty products.

And no, this is about security, not physician choice

Indeed the article here is about security. However in classic slashdot conservative spin, the editor here editorialized it into a baseless attack on the government. The government gets plenty wrong without people making shit up out of nothing.

They also suck at bureaucracy

I'm going to conclude from that statement that you don't actually know any health care providers first hand. Every provider in the US right now spends a huge chunk of their time dealing with bureaucracy. They mastered it in med school - if not sooner - and they face it nearly every hour of every day now as a provider.

and also at not charging an arm and a leg for their services.

If you would set down your kool-aid for a moment and think about this problem you would realize that the physicians have little to do with what is charged for their services. These rates are mostly set by the health insurance industry and various costs that come from dealing with them.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[phantomfive]

no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government"

Yeah, there is.
Normally I would oppose that kind of plan, because Medicare isn't that great, but realistically what we have now isn't that great, either.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government"

Yeah, there is.

Government does not control healthcare for medicare patients. What it does do is set the prices that they will pay for services; doctors are free to accept or reject those (by accepting or rejecting medicare patients). If tomorrow morning we woke up and found that every person in the US was covered by medicare the government would still not be controlling healthcare, as people would still be free to pay out of pocket (for things that medicare didn't cover or for providers who don't want to accept medicare).

but realistically what we have now isn't that great, either.

What we have now is horse shit. I would rather have medicare. In 2010 congress gave the insurance industry a license to print money; the industry was already disgustingly powerful and they made them even more powerful. I would much rather take my chances on medicare.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

the industry was already disgustingly powerful and they made them even more powerful.

Well, they wrote the legislation so of course it made them more powerful.

Re:Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In other words the ACA is a license for the health insurance industry to shake down consumers."

There, FTFY.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[khallow]

Government does not control healthcare for medicare patients. What it does do is set the prices that they will pay for services

Which is control especially given that they pay for some services and not others, and decide who can offer those services. Let us recall that the primary means of control by the federal government is through its funding. For example, tying highway funding to the states in the late 70s to establishment of 55 MPH as a speed limit. Another example is so-called "Title IX" regulations on gender discrimination in colleges which receive federal funding.

I notice several other means by which the federal government controls health care have not yet been mentioned. For an insurer to offer health care insurance, they have to satisfy regulations, including regulations on what services are offered (mandated coverage of birth control being a notorious recent example) and not being able to refuse coverage to people with preexisting conditions. People are now required to have health insurance with the IRS as a result getting some access to health care information of every taxpayer in the US.

The federal government also controls directly the health care of current and former military personnel through its Veteran Affairs hospitals.

And of course, there's future proposals, such as single payer plans, which would extend greatly the US government's power over health care. Just because such plans haven't been successful to date doesn't mean that they will never be.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

Government does not control healthcare for medicare patients. What it does do is set the prices that they will pay for services

Which is control especially given that they pay for some services and not others

No, because the other services can still be offered. You are free to pursue any kind of health care you want - or none at all if you so choose - as a medicare patient. You just know that medicare will cover some things and not others. It is no different from private health insurance, and I have not heard anyone raise a stink about health insurance "controlling" health care.

and decide who can offer those services

Also no. The group that decides who can offer medical services is primarily the AMA, they decide what makes a person qualified as a physician. The government will decide who they will pay to offer those services but that doesn't mean you can't go elsewhere. There are physicians in this country who don't accept medicare (and some who never have) and they make it through their careers just fine.

For an insurer to offer health care insurance, they have to satisfy regulations, including regulations on what services are offered

We have already seen so many exceptions carved out from that such that the regulation you mention is of nearly no consequence. Further more it would still not be regulating health care as it would not interfere with peoples' ability to get - or not get, if they so choose - health care. You pointed out birth control, I point out that it does not make the use of it mandatory.

and not being able to refuse coverage to people with preexisting conditions.

There is such a huge exception carved into that requirement that it doesn't mean much either. Insurance companies have to offer a plan to people with preexisting conditions, but they are not required to offer a plan that is useful or affordable. To make matters worse as the ACA makes every American an obligate consumer, the patient will eventually have to buy something. If the insurance cartel will only offer coverage to these people at $5k / month, they will eventually be forced to buy it.

People are now required to have health insurance with the IRS as a result getting some access to health care information of every taxpayer in the US.

Have you filed your taxes yet this year? I just filed mine a couple days ago. There was just a check box asking me if I had insurance for myself and my family. There was nothing asking me who I buy that insurance through, what it covers, what it costs, or anything else. In terms of data gathering it was quite useless as it only tells the IRS who is saying they have health insurance - it did not ask for any proof whatsoever.

The federal government also controls directly the health care of current and former military personnel through its Veteran Affairs hospitals.

First of all, no. They are free to use other hospitals and clinics if they so choose. They may have to pay for those on their own if they have no other health insurance, but they are not prevented from going to them. It is worth noting that in many areas the VA has programs set up that if they cannot get in to see a provider soon enough they will be a covered referral to go elsewhere.

Second, it is worth noting that satisfaction rates at VA hospitals are no worse than for any insurance plan. The critics are just louder in the case of the VA.

And of course, there's future proposals, such as single payer plans, which would extend greatly the US government's power over health care. Just because such plans haven't been successful to date doesn't mean that they will never be.

We've discussed this before.

Single payer is not government control of health care, period.

There is no way that co

Re:Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[ole_timer]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma... that picture says it all

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[khallow]

No, because the other services can still be offered. You are free to pursue any kind of health care you want - or none at all if you so choose - as a medicare patient. You just know that medicare will cover some things and not others. It is no different from private health insurance, and I have not heard anyone raise a stink about health insurance "controlling" health care.

It's still control. I explained the mechanism by which the control works.

Also no. The group that decides who can offer medical services is primarily the AMA, they decide what makes a person qualified as a physician. The government will decide who they will pay to offer those services but that doesn't mean you can't go elsewhere. There are physicians in this country who don't accept medicare (and some who never have) and they make it through their careers just fine.

And who gave the AMA that power? State licensing boards. You're not thinking.

We have already seen so many exceptions carved out from that such that the regulation you mention is of nearly no consequence.

Saying that doesn't make it true. I already gave counterexamples. Malpractice lawsuits are another example for which so many exceptions have not been made.

First of all, no. They are free to use other hospitals and clinics if they so choose. They may have to pay for those on their own if they have no other health insurance, but they are not prevented from going to them. It is worth noting that in many areas the VA has programs set up that if they cannot get in to see a provider soon enough they will be a covered referral to go elsewhere.

Your objection is irrelevant to the matter at hand. It doesn't refute even a little the observation that the VA is another means by which the US government controls health care of its residents.

We've discussed this before.

Single payer is not government control of health care, period.

Which is 1984-style doublespeak. There's nothing here to rebut. Single payer is a tremendous extension of government power, and of course, control in this area.

There is no way that congress of any foreseeable future would ever pass single payer, regardless of how much the public wants it.

The DNC won't allow Bernie to become president, which will prevent him from being able to propose single payer as president.

The president cannot implement single payer on his own regardless.

The insurance industry owns politicians on both sides of the aisle, they won't allow their servants to pass single payer - and it would be impossible to throw out all the congresspeople who are owned by the insurance industry in any number of election cycles.

I would love for single payer to be impossible. But unlike you, I'm not a fool to believe it is impossible merely because I couldn't see how it would happen in the short term.

Re:Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[ole_timer]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma...

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[ole_timer]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma...

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[khallow]

Let's establish an important fact here - especially since your comment is woefully lacking in facts. Single-payer health care does not mean the government tells your doctor what to do. It does not mean there is a bureaucrat in the office with you second guessing every decision your physician makes. What it does mean is that everyone has the same base level of care (which is currently a completely alien concept in the US) and the government sets the rates they will pay for certain things. You want other things? You can go buy them yourself.

Sure, it does. Should we start looking at examples of real world single payer systems to see these very behaviors you say don't exist?

As to the "base level of care", that already exists. It's whatever you can get in an emergency room for free or Medicaid, if you qualify for the program.

If you would set down your kool-aid for a moment and think about this problem you would realize that the physicians have little to do with what is charged for their services. These rates are mostly set by the health insurance industry and various costs that come from dealing with them.

It really comes from the complete exclusion of the actual consumer of health care from the negotiation.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[ole_timer]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma...

Re:Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[DarkOx]

All that may be true but it does not alter the fact the government has had a great deal of new personal information placed in its hands thru operation of the exchanges and thru information sharing between insurers and the IRS.

While I think there are stronger criticisms to be made, the argument about information risk it poses is a perfectly valid one.

Re:Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[dcw3]

So, what does the CCIIO do if they're not in charge?

https://www.cms.gov/cciio/

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[dcw3]

It sure as shit does control medicare patients. My 77 yr old mother has been through numerous surgeries over the last several years, and is in need of more. However, Medicare limits how much time she can spend in rehab after surgery to under 100 days. She's used that up, and has to wait for a cooling off period before re qualifying, in spite of being in dire need of surgery again. It's not the doctors controlling this, it's the fucking government.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[dcw3]

You better be including all of the bullshit lawsuits brought by ambulance chasers. Ask any doctor how much they pay for insurance to cover that crap, and it all flows down. We also need to break the Insurance/hospital cartel.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

and it would be impossible to throw out all the congresspeople who are owned by the insurance industry in any number of election cycles.

So you vote just to go through the motions, eh? Really, what is the point if it is so "impossible" as you say? What a goof!

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

and it would be impossible to throw out all the congresspeople who are owned by the insurance industry in any number of election cycles.

So you vote just to go through the motions, eh? Really, what is the point if it is so "impossible" as you say? What a goof!

There is only one representative and two senators who represent me in the federal government. At most I can vote for the representative and one senator at a time. If people who live in other districts prefer to be subjects of the insurance industry I cannot to anything about that. That is how democracy works.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

My 77 yr old mother has been through numerous surgeries over the last several years, and is in need of more. However, Medicare limits how much time she can spend in rehab after surgery to under 100 days. She's used that up, and has to wait for a cooling off period before re qualifying, in spite of being in dire need of surgery again. It's not the doctors controlling this, it's the fucking government.

That is no different from what any insurance company would do. Health insurance is all about limiting access to health care and discouraging people from using it. If your mother was on a health care plan from a for-profit - and mind you she still could buy into one if she has the money - she would run into the same problem. Every plan on the market has some limits; some are just higher than others.

I'm sorry that your mother isn't happy with medicare, but she wouldn't be seeing anything better with a plan from the market.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

Well, as long as you're not blaming the government or even the industry, it's all good. ACA won the Peoples' Choice award, twice.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

Well, as long as you're not blaming the government or even the industry, it's all good.

Have you read to completion anything I have written here, ever? I rarely am not blaming the industry - especially the insurance industry. From my vantage point the health insurance industry is the most morally bankrupt industry of them all; I trust lawyers, used car salesmen, realtors, and stockbrokers all more than I trust anyone from the insurance industry. I have repeatedly pointed out that the fuckers from the insurance industry own our federal government and shoved the ACA down our throats to ensure their business profitability to forever.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it does. Should we start looking at examples of real world single payer systems to see these very behaviors you say don't exist?

As to the "base level of care", that already exists. It's whatever you can get in an emergency room for free or Medicaid, if you qualify for the program.

Yes lets look at examples, I am Canadian, and my government has no actual say in what treatments i get from the health care system! If im sick, i go to the doctor of my choice and then he or she figures out what is wrong with me and tells me what treatment i should have. there is no one other than the doctor and my self that has power over that interaction. Even if you look at the fringe cases where treatment is exorbitantly expensive, the government will side with the doctor and then use its power of negotiation to get the pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. They do this because they negotiate on behalf of all Canadians and no company is stupid enough to cut them selves from the entire Canadian market over one type of treatment that is an edge case.

It really comes from the complete exclusion of the actual consumer of health care from the negotiation.

Why do i need to be involved in the negotiation? All i want is to be able to go to the doctor and get taken care of with a minimal personal expense. When the government bears the expense then it is their prerogative to lower costs by playing hardball with the suppliers to lower the costs of the medicine which they are better off doing because they have the weigh of our population behind them in the negotiations.

the fact is that countries with single payer health care pay less for medication than countries with private health care systems.

Your health insurance companies have to make money to pay their investors, our government doesn't even need to worry about running a profit as every Canadian is an equal shareholder thus any profit they run would just lower our taxes.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

I rarely am not blaming the industry - especially the insurance industry.

Yes, exactly. For what? If they win the votes, why is it their fault if people fall for the con by electing their puppets? And if that is the case, what is the resolution? You won't change the law by reelecting them. Your choice...

Re:Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

Government can fuck up a whet dream. I don't know where these idiot progressive zealots think that government is the answer to everything, because it's not and history has plenty of examples.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[JesseMcDonald]

You are free to pursue any kind of health care you want - or none at all if you so choose - as a medicare patient. You just know that medicare will cover some things and not others. It is no different from private health insurance, and I have not heard anyone raise a stink about health insurance "controlling" health care.

The differences you're glossing over are voluntary participation and competition among providers, which are exactly the aspects a single-payer system would eliminate by definition. In the single-payer system you are forced to pay for coverage for a set of services selected by the government, whether you personally value them or not. Sure, you can pay out-of-pocket for services which are not in this set—but the funds you would need for those services have already been earmarked for other services you don't want, so this only works if you're wealthy enough to pay for both the services you use and the unwanted ones the government selected.

Moreover, while private insurance companies do play a similar role in selecting which services will be covered under their insurance plans and which will not, you are free to choose your own insurer. Competition among insurers, and the ability for new insurers to enter the market to address any unfilled demand, ensures that premiums are linked to the costs of the treatments people actually want, not just the ones preferred by the politicians and bureaucrats.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[dcw3]

Again, you stated that they don't control it, when in fact that is false. Your point about it being no different from an insurance company is irrelevant to what you claimed. "Government does not control healthcare for medicare patients".

And, while you may believe private insurance wouldn't be any better, that's at least debatable.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

I can only make a difference with regards to the congress critters that the insurance industry owns who represent my state and district. I am powerless to prevent the rest of them from being reelected. Furthermore as we well know, even with congress's approval rating in the high single digits, people tend to give their own representatives high marks and live in a bubble of "the other guy is the problem".

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

And you live in a bubble of "the insurance industry is the problem".

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

It appears you and I have very different ideas of what the word "control" means.

When I drive my car, I control it. My car does not have free will, it does not get to go anywhere other than where I want it to. It has no choices. If I was a horse owner I could say the same thing about a horse.

A medicare patient is not controlled in that way, nor is their health care. Yes, there are limits on what medicare will pay for them to do, but the patients are not prohibited from paying for other things themselves. The health care of a medicare patient is no more controlled than is the health care of a customer of any health insurance plan in this country. In fact the medicare patient is arguably less controlled by medicare than is a customer of a regular plan as the regular plan customer would be penalized by their insurance company if they were to start paying for things out of pocket.

Furthermore the notion that medicare is the same thing as having the government actually making decisions for you is completely ludicrous. The statement strongly suggests that choices for each patient are made directly and individually by federal employees and representatives, which is absolutely not true. This mind set is where the myth of the "death panel" came from.

And, while you may believe private insurance wouldn't be any better, that's at least debatable.

As a victim of private insurance, I will tell you this is not debatable. The insurance industry of decades gone by already had enough power to make my life hell in the pursuit of marginally better profit. Now they have even more power and they aren't about to become more generous when they haven't been given a reason to do so. What my insurance company did to me would have caused medicare employees to lose their jobs. Instead the bastards at my insurance company were rewarded for their greed.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

Talk to me about this again a few years in the future when your insurance company tries to fuck you the way mine tried to fuck me. Then you'll realize what a problem those bastards are.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[khallow]

Even if you look at the fringe cases where treatment is exorbitantly expensive, the government will side with the doctor and then use its power of negotiation to get the pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices. They do this because they negotiate on behalf of all Canadians and no company is stupid enough to cut them selves from the entire Canadian market over one type of treatment that is an edge case.

So right here in your first paragraph, we see the Canadian government at some level exercising control over what health care is provided. Here, you claim the Canadian government is exercising monopsony power over the health care market. Since they are negotiating on behalf of the Canadian health care consumer, they are implicitly controlling what health care that consumer receives.

Why do i need to be involved in the negotiation? All i want is to be able to go to the doctor and get taken care of with a minimal personal expense. When the government bears the expense then it is their prerogative to lower costs by playing hardball with the suppliers to lower the costs of the medicine which they are better off doing because they have the weigh of our population behind them in the negotiations.

Because it's your health. I think I merely state the obvious that a lot of people would consume less health care if they were confronted with the choice of paying more for extra health care they might receive.

Your health insurance companies have to make money to pay their investors, our government doesn't even need to worry about running a profit as every Canadian is an equal shareholder thus any profit they run would just lower our taxes.

In other words, health insurance companies and private health care providers have to be efficient while governments flush immense amounts of other peoples' money without a second thought.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

You enable them by voting for politicians that take their money and protect their business. This is what your lesser evil game provides for you.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

The federal government has been reduced to a marketing arm of the insurance industry. Any elected official who goes in not being owned by the insurance industry won't retain those stripes long, or won't retain their office long if they try to keep away from the insurance industry. The passing of ACA was formal acknowledgement of this being truly Game Over.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

Your votes are what made it that way. Look in the mirror, boy!

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

I found your comment amusing to read while I was taking a lunch break at a local party convention. But go ahead and keep telling me how your strategy of non-voting is working out so much better.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

Still keeping up with the lie, eh? I suppose that will be your template of excuses. The insurance companies appreciate your vote.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

Your strategy is guaranteed failure. My strategy has little chance of success but it is still better than zero. If you had a better idea I expect you would have shared it by now.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

Obviously you have no idea since you're just lying, to cover up your own responsibility for voting for quid pro quo candidates... There are plenty of alternatives right there on your ballot, but you will vote for democrats that shill for the insurance industry. You clearly don't "hate" them as much as you let on. You're just putting on a show.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

Was that a contest you put on with yourself there to see if you could break your previous records for most lies in a single short slashdot post? You probably won...

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

Your projecting your own characteristics onto me again... To be expected I guess, since you must deny the part you play to keep up appearances.

Now, for the viewing audience, feel free to point out anything in my previous post that was incorrect. Since most of us are already accustomed to your regular hand waving, we're not expecting much.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

Well, at least you have the intellect then to realize that it is almost certain that nobody else is reading this discussion this far.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

Well, you're back to lying to yourself then.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

If I was myself concerned with other people reading this I would have stopped replying some time ago. However I have nothing to lose from watching you make a fool of yourself.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

I have nothing to lose from watching you make a fool of yourself.

Yes, well, a fool rarely has anything to lose he hasn't lost already. So, stay safe in the middle of the herd.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

And what have you ever risked with your strategy of non-voting and mocking people from internet forums? You have no skin in the game.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

You're still lying though, in the vain attempt to hide your own responsibility for the results... a simple follower of the crowd, living in denial.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[damn_registrars]

You make that statement as if you expect me to believe that you could support it with reality. You and I both know that is not true.

Re: Can we turn the hyperbole down to 10?

[fustakrakich]

Of course it is. Look at you! There's the reality right there

So Hillary did the right thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

She had an industry expert setup her server in her bathroom.

Re: So Hillary did the right thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. She didn't wait on slow government IT. She got stuff done.

Re: So Hillary did the right thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Her server must have been more secure than what the government would have provided.

Re: So Hillary did the right thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prolly more secure

Re:So Hillary did the right thing?

[Tablizer]

She had an industry expert setup her server in her bathroom

So it might literally crap out?

Re:So Hillary did the right thing?

[CaptnCrud]

There was a reason she installed the super flush kind of toilet, and it wasn't just to clean those tenacious skid marks either.

Re: So Hillary did the right thing?

[dcw3]

This. She didn't wait on slow government IT. She got stuff done.

Like protecting the embassy. Oh, nevermind.

You want quality, you need to pay for it

[Minupla]

... And I'm not talking about writing large checks to companies that want to sell you something. They don't have your best interests at heart.

The issue is that anytime Joe Q Public hears of government employees making 6 figures he goes ballistic. He does this without any thinking or research about what a comparative job in the private sector pays.

People work in infosec in govt long enough to be attractive to $BigGovtContrator and then bail, get the real salary from the contractor and cash in. That's the game. There's probably a few honest folks who are trying to make things better, but they'll be undercut by the ones trying to give big sweet contracts to $BigGovtContractor in order to pad their parachute.

If we want govt to be effective we have to stop losing our pressure valve because someone working for the government is making more then we do.

And this is pretty much without respect to which country we're talking about. I'm not American but I work in infosec and I won't take a govt job here either. Tried it for like 6 months, saw the game and ran for private sector (no, not for $BigGovtContractor).

I know, not what you want to hear, and I expect to get modded down, but sometimes the truth hurts :)

Min

Re: You want quality, you need to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

You dont need to pay govt employees six figures. They dont run govt IT. They hire six figure contractors to do it. What you need is to get the govt managers out of the way and let the contractors do their job.

Re: You want quality, you need to pay for it

[aaarrrgggh]

There is a level of truth to this, but you need a base competency in-house to understand and champion the efforts.

Also, the general gripe of six-figure salaries in government isn't the base pay, it is all the benefits that are completely inconsistent with the private sector... while generally not being that much of a discount to private sector in salary.

Re:You want quality, you need to pay for it

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The issue is that anytime Joe Q Public hears of government employees making 6 figures he goes ballistic

Government employees can make 6 figures. The problem is the law that says that no one in the federal government (other than POTUS/VPOTUS/Justices) can be paid more than a Congressman. And they capped their salaries at the low 6 \figures.

Re: You want quality, you need to pay for it

[chill]

Citation please. And I ask as a govt employee who has a salary higher than any Congressman other than the Speaker of the House.

They have staff allowances, expense accounts and benefits that aren't available to others, but salary alone...

Top career officials at an agency like FDIC have a max salary of $260k. Congressman are paid $174k according to Wikipedia.

Re:You want quality, you need to pay for it

[ole_timer]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma...

Re:You want quality, you need to pay for it

[chihowa]

The highest paying gov't job on the first page of USAJOBS results was $300k, which I wouldn't call "low six figures". I work with several people who make more than Congressmen and my own salary is approaching that.

Re:You want quality, you need to pay for it

[Whorhay]

I won't argue that salaries don't have an impact, but I think there are bigger money problems. Namely that security is literally always the last consideration before a system is brought online. As a result security ends up becoming more about justifying leaving vulnerabilities open than fixing them. Fixing known security holes often involves changing the way a system actually functions and plenty of risk for lengthy down times and outages when things don't go smoothly. Better funding can mitigate a lot of this but it only goes so far because if you get funded well then congress is likely to want a face to face whenever something goes wrong. Everyone is risk averse, and sadly their biggest perceived risk is getting called in to explain to congress why their application broke. In theory security has the teeth to pull an application from the network if it fails to meet specific standards, in practice I've never even heard of it happening.

Re: You want quality, you need to pay for it

[dcw3]

Agreeing with parent here. Six figures in the D.C. metro area will barely get you a decent low level manager in private industry. It's expensive to live/work here. The government needs to at least be somewhat competitive if they actually want someone with a little bit of talent.

Re:You want quality, you need to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the highest paid federal employee is here:

Navy head football coach Ken Niumatalolo stands one win away from a third-straight postseason bowl appearance, remains unbeaten against Army and is poised to lead the Midshipmen into football conference play for the first time in school history.

Can you put a price on that? Yes: $1,574,810.

That’s Niumatalolo’s 2014 salary, according to USA Today’s annual college football pay roundup, ranking him 60th out of the 121 Football Bowl Subdivision coaches listed. He easily outpaces Air Force’s Troy Calhoun ($892,750 in total compensation, 74th) and Army first-year coach Jeff Monken ($834,667, 77th).

http://afteraction.militarytimes.com/2014/11/20/2014-college-coaching-salary-roundup-niumatalolo-leads-academy-trio/

Re:You want quality, you need to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

I know MANY people working for the government who make six-figures, and who don't do anything to warrant that kind of pay.

Re: You want quality, you need to pay for it

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Citation please

5 U.S.C. 5303(f)Limits base compensation to Level 5 ($148,700). Additional compensatory payments (locale based adjustments, etc.) may raise total pay to Level 1, what cabinet members make ($203,700) which falls between the Majority Leader's pay and the Speaker's pay

FDIC is a strange organization. They receive no money from Congress, and are therefore exempt from the rules on max payments.

Re: You want quality, you need to pay for it

[chill]

You're misinterpreting that statute. For a quick example check out the SES pay rates, which go as high as $183k, which is the equivalent of Level II of the Executive Schedule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Executive_Service_(United_States)

Finally, that a look at USC 5305 which grants the President, they OPM, the right to set alternative pay schedules based on several factors.

This is used, for example, to pay certain positions at a much higher rate, such as doctors.

The financial services agencies (FDIC, OCC, SEC, CFTC, maybe one or two others) have their own pay schedule that goes higher because they have to try to compete with financial sector salaries.

I've seen FDIC postings advertised with a max salary of $265k. If I'm not mistaken, the FRB goes over $300k for their senior execs.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/5303

Senior execs don't get locality adjustments, but us peons do. As high as 30% for people in San Francisco, with New York, DC and Chicago not that far behind.

Follow the money...

[__aaclcg7560]

This is a good time to be in government IT. I'm finishing my second year in my current job as a security remediation technician, getting paid holidays, 20 Paid Time Off (PTO) days, and a decent benefit package (401K/health/dental/vision), and the prime contract is fully funded for another three years. As the recruiter told me, once you start working for the government, you're in for life. Most of my coworkers are ex-military and been here for 10+ years. Alas, the downside is that I could be making 40% more in the private sector without any guaranteed job security.

Re:Follow the money...

[birukun]

In my case, I am a contractor ready to bail because my government sponsor, who is in a big role in a branch of military cybersecurity, is not motivated nor interested in anything that might take effort. Gotta protect his funding line and rice bowl.......

The lack of leadership combined with the bureaucracy has made me lose any faith that things will improve. I work with some people every now and then that are awesome, dedicated and motivated, but like me, they get tired of 'the fight' and take a job outside of the .gov space, getting paid and with about 30% of the responsibility.

 

AstroTurf

[Frosty Piss]

I always look at "reports" like these with a very skeptical eye because usually they have been produced for some company looking for a contract. As a 20 year DoD employee, I can tell you that neither my SIPRNET nor NIPRNET has been owned by anyone. Except the Chinese, but that's normal, right?

Re:AstroTurf

[alexhs]

Except the Chinese, but that's normal, right?

If the Russians and Israelis don't also own these systems, it surely isn't normal?

However, it might be normal that you didn't notice the Russians :)
However, the Israeli Reality Distortion Field might have convinced you that their access to these systems was legit as if they were part of the five eyes :)

Re:AstroTurf

[avandesande]

There are numerous government agencies each with their own enclave with no two run the same. Some are better than others.....

Failure is an option in government

[schwit1]

The heads of healthcare.gov, IRS and OPM KNEW they had ongoing hacks and did nothing. Has anyone gone to jail or been heavily fined or lost their pension? There are no consequences to failing in government.

Re:Failure is an option in government

[__aaclcg7560]

There are no consequences to failing in government.

That may be true for political appointees and their cronies, but not for the typical government worker. The agency I worked for hired several IT workers who thought this was a "gubermint" job, did nothing when they reported to work, and were shocked to discover themselves unemployed in short order. Most of my coworkers are ex-military folks with zero tolerance for slackers.

Re:Failure is an option in government

[gweihir]

A failing administration usually turns into a pork-barrel for all involved as one of the later steps. That has already happened in the US. Next steps: full-blown police state, fascism, economic collapse, dark age, slow rebuilding. Maybe throw in a nuclear war to make things even worse.

Re:Failure is an option in government

[gweihir]

Worker-bees are not the real problem. But there is only so much that worker-bees can do to keep the whole functioning and they are failing.

Defending

[Livius]

against cyber security attacks, as opposed to perpetrating them.

I wasn't sure at first.

News Flash

[jon3k]

Report: US Government Worse Than All Major Industries On [literally anything done by private industry]

And we're supposed to trust 'em with *INSERT HERE*

[Chas]

Seriously.

Their security is so lax that if you CAN'T get at something, it's a mistake.

But they want us to trust them with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING?

Fuck that noise!

Solution

[Tablizer]

They should put their email on a private server.

Yes, we trust them with healthcare

[Sir Holo]

FT-Summary: And we are supposed to trust them with healthcare?

The largest data-breach in American history was of Anthem(TM), a private health-insurance company.

Re:Yes, we trust them with healthcare

[blindseer]

So then perhaps one might conclude it better to not have insurance at all and pay for everything in cash? If we can't trust the government, or the insurance companies, then perhaps it's best to leave these middlemen out.

I'm not saying hospitals have never had a data breach but at least I'd minimize the number of places that my data can be stolen from. It also makes the attacks much harder. Instead of attacking a big insurance company, or a government agency, the people that want health records would have to attack a hospital, where the number of records available would be smaller.

Re:Yes, we trust them with healthcare

[chispito]

The largest data-breach in American history

I'm not disputing this, but how are you measuring the "size" of the breach? Productivity lost? Highest profile? The total number of individuals affected? Or is a breach bigger if slightly fewer people are affected but in a more substantial way? I can think of many ways that the Sony breach was bigger, or the Snowden leaks, or the recently disclosed Panama Papers (though not "American").

Re:Yes, we trust them with healthcare

[Sir Holo]

The largest data-breach in American history

I'm not disputing this, but how are you measuring the "size" of the breach? Productivity lost? Highest profile? The total number of individuals affected? Or is a breach bigger if slightly fewer people are affected but in a more substantial way? I can think of many ways that the Sony breach was bigger, or the Snowden leaks, or the recently disclosed Panama Papers (though not "American").

Number of people affected, each of which could have had the entirety of their medical records copied.

Last I heard, it was traced back to Chinese hackers, who wanted to find out how the US had such a great – *cough* – healthcare system.

axiomatic

[Anonymous Coward]

The most inefficient bureaucracy in the history of the world. They are engineered to do this wrong, and repeatably.
Just wait. They can do a worse job next time.

Re:axiomatic

[gweihir]

And then they will raise taxes to pay for more failures. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that the US still has some years and maybe decades of remaining functional lifetime. Hence there must have been worse examples in history.

Anyone get the actual report?

[clovis]

The Reuters article has a link to the actual report:
http://info.securityscorecard....

They have a form to fill out and they send a link to your email address for the download. No biggie there, we all have many addresses.
But they also demand your phone number. I'm not giving anyone my real phone number, wtf, and why would they even ask?

They haven't yet sent me a link.
Anyone seen the report? I'm curious to know what was their criteria for ranking. And, considering that unauthorized penetration testing is kind of a no-no, I'm even more curious as to how they obtained their data.

Re:Anyone get the actual report?

[clovis]

The Reuters article has a link to the actual report:
http://info.securityscorecard....

They have a form to fill out and they send a link to your email address for the download. No biggie there, we all have many addresses.
But they also demand your phone number. I'm not giving anyone my real phone number, wtf, and why would they even ask?

They haven't yet sent me a link.
Anyone seen the report? I'm curious to know what was their criteria for ranking. And, considering that unauthorized penetration testing is kind of a no-no, I'm even more curious as to how they obtained their data.

I poked around on their web site and stumbled across a scroll-up window link that downloaded the file directly, although the link did not say that.
http://blog.securityscorecard....

Some of their criteria makes sense:
"SecurityScorecard identifies potential vulnerabilities in network security by identifying open ports and examining whether or not an organization uses best practices such as staying up-to-date with current protocols, or securing network endpoints to ensure external access to internal systems are minimized. "

Some I wonder about. This sounds like a process that would depend upon luck. I don't see how a even-handed comparison of many sites could be done.
"To evaluate if malware is active in a system, SecurityScorecard reverse engineers the source code of an infection and determines how the malware communicates back to its command and control servers. Researchers can then intercept the communication, which can be traced back to an IP address from which it’s emanating, indicating an infected network. “

And then there's things like this:
"SecurityScorecard identifies multiple factors related to social engineering such as employees using corporate account information in social networks, employees exposing an organization to phishing attacks and spam, and employees posting negative reviews of the business to social platforms."

Their scoring is opaque. They have like 10 items they grade on and they provide an aggregate score. You don't know if they got dinged because employees are griping on facebook, or if it's because they're running Windows NT on their web servers.

Re:Anyone get the actual report?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know if they got dinged because employees are griping on facebook, or if it's because they're running Windows NT on their web servers.

Well, according to the Slashdot hive-mind, both of those offenses deserve a slow torturous execution before an altar to Linus Torvalds.

Public vs private

[bestweasel]

Aren't private entities more likely to keep data breaches quiet if they can, to avoid reputational damage or frightening the stockholders? They don't have to follow the same disclosure rules as the Government if personal data isn't involved and aren't necessarily subject to the same FoI laws.

Cyber Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Cyber this, cyber that. There is no cyber fucking anything outside of bad 80s science fiction movies OK? You are not Johnny Mnemonic, you are joe fucking blow who works as a cleaner at the mall.

Put down the cyber bullshit. We are tired of it.

At least the 3D printer spam seems to have abated.

Damn kids...

SecurityScorecard -- who are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

I google them, not much on them.
Here is a possible scenario, and I'm not say I think this company did this, but it is possible.
A company wants to increase their fame. They think, what can we do that will get us a lot of free publicity?
1. hold a bake sale
2. do an ad campaign where they buy things for ordinary people (I think Honda is doing that, at least in Calif.)
3. hold a beauty contest.
4. write up a study claiming the US Government is bad at something, anything, combined with the claim that we are experts in this field. Put a banner ad at the top of our website.

That's the people that want backdoors

[gweihir]

If they get them, does anybody seriously believe the keys to those backdoors will not be in the hands of state-sponsored and other hackers very soon after?

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they are, especially when you consider that the corrupt government wants all of our private data (such as electronic medical records) stolen so Obama Care can be rescinded and insurance companies can then reap the financial rewards. Can you say all planned? I knew you could!

73,

ab5ni

.

Not suprising

[Anonymous Coward]

USAian politicians all receive bribes, ummm I mean campaign contributions, from sovereign foreign nations. I would not expect these 'elected' officials to put very much premium on cybersecurity. After all there are only so many hours in the day, and the lottery needs to be tended.

Putin may be a despot. But at least he looks after the interests of Russia. Unfortunately USAian elected officails also look after the interests of Russia.

China, and Mexico will have more of an adverses affect on the quality of life of USAians than ISIS ever will. Mexico has given their campain contributions to the elected officials. ISIS did not. ISIS gets carpet bombed. Mexican drug lords get sanctuary cities. See the difference.

No motivation to ensure security

[Archtech]

Compared to "all major industries", or indeed anyone who has skin in the game, government departments have very little at stake in the matter of computer security. I would be interested to see a list of all individual government employees and contractors who have been severely punished for failing to make IT systems secure. (Except that if such a list exists, it is almost certainly "Top Secret"). In really serious cases, the government tends to punish taxpayers by pretending to fine itself.

I suggest

[Mistakill]

They look more at encrypting things...

BULLSHIT - STOP BLOWING MONEY ON WAR

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject.

APK

Better healthcare analogy: how's the VA doing?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> And we are supposed to trust them with healthcare?

I wouldn't look at cybersecurity as a guide, but I would check how the government's doing with the Veteran's Administration (VA hospitals, etc.) as a guide to what future health care might look like.

Re:Better healthcare analogy: how's the VA doing?

[ole_timer]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma...

Outcome of Lowest Bidder?

[mlw4428]

This is a natural outcome when you're forced to nearly always choose from among the lowest bidders. The other is that there's never been a real budget (and thus push) to upgrade their systems. I'm reading a lot of comments in this post about the ACA...doesn't anyone remember that half of the problem with healthcare.gov's launch issues was because they were trying to tie together multiple,, severely old systems? Is it any surprise that a 3 decade+ old system wasn't written with modern infosec practices in mind?

All governments worse

[OpinOnion]

Good luck finding any government that has updated IT security. It's not just the US by any means. Governments in general always update a bit slower, so this is fully expected that government technology is behind private. We know that, we expect that and we are ok with that. You can't have it both ways though. You can't expect government to be ahead of private industry in a capitalist system like this. Government CAN tackle the big projects occasionally, but it's not supposed to be cutting edge. Government is supposed to be slow and rather difficult to change. That's a good thing much more than a bad thing. Any good social change in the world comes over time, so the idea that your government must often be ready for massive reform suggests not that it's flexible so much as that it's unstable. The government is NOTHING MORE than a reflection of the people in any democratic nation. Anything you hate about government you need to first realize that you hate about yourself first.

US Government trying to Lead By Example

[DickBreath]

We should be commending the US Government, who is leading by example, practicing what they preach, that everything should be less secure. The poorly named "intelligence" community regularly complains that everything must be made insecure. The growing number of secure software systems has a name. It's called "going dark". The government needs to ensure that things do not go dark. Therefore insecure systems should be preferred over secure systems.

You can't have it both ways. It's a binary choice. Systems are secure, or they are insecure. I am referring to the intent here. A system is intended to be secure, or it is intended to be insecure. An intention to be secure does not, itself, guarantee security. But an intention to be insecure does guarantee insecurity.

The government sees insecurity as a desirable norm.

Everyone else, for some reason, sees security as a desirable norm. This contrary view cannot be allowed to stand.
/s

Obamacare a step to "single payer"

[mi]

One, it is pointless because it won't happen.

If you told me 20 years ago, that a self-identified "Democratic Socialist" (and a bona-fide Communist underneath) will soon have a fair shot at becoming President of the US, I would've dismissed it with the same derision... But today's youth does not care any more — the Socialism/Communism's 100 years of failure (and mass-murder) are not taught in schools.

Two, it is a pointless claim because there are no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government".

Currently is the caveat-emptor, is not it? Look on this very board — numerous people speak in favor of "single payer", and they all vote...

Even the most socialized of all medical systems still give the physicians at least as much autonomy as our system does.

TFA is not about "authority" — it is about incompetence. When doctors become government-employees — as they are in Cuba so beloved by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore, and other worker paradises — the healthcare will suck just as it does there.

And we are on our way — by many indications, Obamacare was designed to fail, and is failing as "CO-OPs" go bankrupt, and major commercial insurers threaten to withdraw. It did not "bend the curve" of the costs either — the grows of healthcare costs is accelerating.

It will continue to suck. Which will allow the next "progressive" President to claim "the market approach has failed" — and turn to a government-owned (euphemistically called "single payer") system. Obama himself would've done it — with enthusiastic support from morons like certain anonymous cowards replying to you — but "the nation was not ready" so he simply laid down the ground work for the future:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

In other words, you are just parroting standard slashdot conservative FUD.

You seem like the kind, who'd be trying t

Re:Obamacare a step to "single payer"

[Anonymous Coward]

I most love the way you constantly ignore its successes, while only pointing to its failures.

the national healthcare systems of most of the modern world.
the ginormous explosion of economic might and prosperity following WWII, not just for the upper crust, who've never needed help, but for all peoples at all levels, something never seen before in human history, again brought on by those nasty socialist liberal policies.

no, pure socialism doesn't work.
but then neither does pure capitalism.

and stuff you red herring controlling questions.
a most fallacious "debate" method only serves to make you look stupid and incapable of actually debating anything without first creating a reverse strawman

And who issued this report?

[whitroth]

And what financial stake do they have in this?

              mark

OPM hack exposed all of my DoD clearance data

[Anonymous Coward]

I have/had above Top Secret DoD clearance (can't even tell you the security level...) My complete DoD security file - full life history, SS#, lifetime addresses, relative's names, etc. was exposed in the OPM (Office of Personnel Management) hack - everything needed for any identity theft. Identity theft has been attempted several times. My USAA debit card was compromised by a Wells Fargo hack despite my only using it at a (Wells Fargo) ATM inside a DoD secured facility, and was charged for ~1K$. (USAA nicely cleaned that up and even left me the 0.5% kickback on that charge!.) Government and financial institutions are your biggest risks. Practicing safe hex on the internet doesn't protect you from these idiots.

I call bullshit

[jmcvetta]

This is obviously false. The US Gubmint is vast sprawling collection of agencies. Some parts of it have bad security. Other parts have very, very good security.

Federal, state, and local politicians & employ

[eric_harris_76]

What's the incentive for federal, state, or local politicians & employees to make their systems secure?

For someone in the private sector, there are incentives at all levels of the corporate hierarchy.

If your job description is security, a significant or catastrophic breach could lead to unemployment. If you're in management and your responsibilities include getting good security people hired and supplied with the tools they need, that breach could lead to unemployment. Top executives whose compensation is tied to stock price could find themselves shy quite a few bucks for a few quarters, even if they keep their jobs.

It doesn't always work out that way in the private sector. But the incentives do exist, and do exert an influence.

Not so much in the government sector.