According to the article there isnt any evidence this tool has affected healthcare.gov.
Of course, there's no way of knowing who wrote and posted the tool, which has been mentioned on social media sites. It's certainly possible that it's the work of critics of President Obama's healthcare legislation. But until we learn more, there's no way to rule out the possibility that it was developed by an Obamacare supporter with the hope of discrediting critics.
Arbor researcher Marc Eisenbarth said there's no evidence Healthcare.gov has withstood any significant denial-of-service attacks since going live last month. He also said the limited request rate, the lack of significant distribution, and other features of the tool's underlying code made it unlikely that it could play a significant role in taking down the site.
This has me laughing:
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...vice-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/
Basically it seems like there are people out there that will not stop at anything to try and bring down Obamacare, even going to far as to sabotaging the website via DDoS.
If you want to protest the ACA, don't sign up for Obamacare. Don't try to sabotage it for the people that actually want to use it. That's just plain stupid.
LOLLOL, I'm in ur website, killing ur affordable care d00dz....
So hackers are the latest waypoint on who to blame for why Obamacare is a miserable failure. We already know the buck doesn't stop with Obama, but now they've outsourced the problem altogether to a mysterious, unnamed evil force. Bad Anonymous, bad hacker!
LOL, I'm in ur website, killing ur affordable care d00dz....
So hackers are the latest waypoint on who to blame for why Obamacare is a miserable failure. We already know the buck doesn't stop with Obama, but now they've outsourced the problem altogether to a mysterious, unnamed evil force. Bad Anonymous, bad hacker!
At the time, President Obama was still arguing that the main culprit for the breakdowns was the popularity of the site. “The website got overwhelmed by the volume,” he said on Oct. 4. The reality, of course, was far more dire.
The basic architecture of the site, built by federal contractors overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, was flawed in design, poorly tested and ultimately not functional. “You need there to be good people on the inside to make good contracting decisions and good people on the outside to do the work,” explained Clay Johnson, a Democratic technology consultant who recently worked as a White House fellow. “Right now, it’s the blind leading the blind.”
Even on the back end of the site, data was garbled and, in some cases, unusable.
Sad thing is this isn't the least bit surprising from the same folks that engineered the government shutdown. To them if it doesn't fit your ideolocy, blow it up is an exceptable tactic
Interesting how fuzzy thinking and bogus factual presumptions preclude any concept of rational analysis or thought on the conservative side.
Interesting how fuzzy thinking and bogus factual presumptions preclude any concept of rational analysis or thought on the conservative side.
LOL, look at all the foolish kneejerk lefties.
Counting this post I count 5 leftie posts. And 25 rightie posts deflecting blame. :whiste: the pot calling the kettle black as usual
Assuming it happened: Does ones opinion on the issue change depending on the Source of the DDOS attack?
For eg, Are Political Opponents doing it as a form of Protest, ok? Are Chinese or other foreign Hackers doing it to cause instability within the US, ok?
LOL Deflecting blame from the culprits who are totally unknown? Is that even theoretically possible?Counting this post I count 5 leftie posts. And 25 rightie posts deflecting blame. :whiste: the pot calling the kettle black as usual
It takes a truly deranged and shitty person to protest a law they don't like by preventing others from accessing health care. What the hell is wrong with people.
It takes a truly deranged and shitty person to protest a law they don't like by preventing others from accessing health care. What the hell is wrong with people.
They're standing up for the rights of others. The constitution does not give any right to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to pay for health care or pay a penalty for not having it.
Technically that's probably true, but SCOTUS ruled that as a tax, it's acceptable. Philosophically I'd tend to agree, but as it's not acceptable in America for people to go without health care, practically we have a problem as people now have the ability to buy a new smart phone rather than buy insurance knowing that if they have an emergency or contract a life-threatening condition, we'll pick up the tab and attempt to collect later. So to have a sustainable system we have to either deny all health care to those without money or health insurance, or have some mechanism to force people into the system. Both have good and bad sides, but sure the latter is the lesser evil.They're standing up for the rights of others. The constitution does not give any right to the federal government that allows them to force citizens to pay for health care or pay a penalty for not having it.
People who are receiving subsidies or who previously were unable to find affordable insurance (not cheap, but literally affordable) due to existing high risk factors.What? Explain. Who can afford Obamacare but not private insurance?
Counting this post I count 5 leftie posts. And 25 rightie posts deflecting blame. :whiste: the pot calling the kettle black as usual
This has me laughing:
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...vice-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/
Basically it seems like there are people out there that will not stop at anything to try and bring down Obamacare, even going to far as to sabotaging the website via DDoS.
If you want to protest the ACA, don't sign up for Obamacare. Don't try to sabotage it for the people that actually want to use it. That's just plain stupid.
I find it more interesting that the philosophy that a DDoS/DOS is no longer seen as equivalent to a sit-in protest once it affects something near and dear to certain ideologies.