Sigh... Healthcare.gov Selling Personal Information.

[NobleSavage]

This is why we can't have nice things in the US.

From AP:

The government's health insurance website is quietly sending consumers' personal data to private companies that specialize in advertising and analyzing Internet data for performance and marketing, The Associated Press has learned.

The scope of what is disclosed or how it might be used was not immediately clear, but it can include age, income, ZIP code, whether a person smokes, and if a person is pregnant. It can include a computer's Internet address, which can identify a person's name or address when combined with other information collected by sophisticated online marketing or advertising firms.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Py6rd7WO


Confirmed by EFF:

EFF researchers have independently confirmed that healthcare.gov is sending personal health information to at least 14 third party domains, even if the user has enabled Do Not Track. The information is sent via the referrer header, which contains the URL of the page requesting a third party resource

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/healthcare.gov-sends-personal-data

Target notified a woman's family that she was pregnant before she even told them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir...teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This way we will know what organs to harvest when the rich need them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not exactly surprising. They contract it out and don't pay attention to the contractors making something on the side with the data.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First reaction

*sigh* Is it possible for government to get things right?

Second reaction

Well, people put more info than that out on Facebook.

Third reaction

Is any privileged information being distributed?

 

[KeepTalking]

They distribute census data for free, and this seems to be about the same data set, maybe even a bit more restricted. So long as the money they are making is going to pay for part of the ACA, or at least into government coffers, rather than to line the pockets of the companies that developed the software, I don't have a huge problem with it.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't have a huge problem with it.

Neither do I. So why do I shudder when I read that information like whether one smokes or whether one is pregnant are shared. Maybe its because the boundary between private and public is being pierced for profit by a government health subscription agency.

 

[dismal]

My party is in charge so I must defend it.[/conservoprogressive]

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't have a huge problem with it.

Neither do I. So why do I shudder when I read that information like whether one smokes or whether one is pregnant are shared. Maybe its because the boundary between private and public is being pierced for profit by a government health subscription agency.

Is it for profit, or is it to recoup some of the costs of the ACA, and ultimately avoid additional taxation?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As I sit here saying "I told you so", I wonder if this would cause anyone to rethink their support of this program and similarly invasive programs.

I doubt it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh, you zany Americans. From invading foreign countries to giving your people health care, is there anything that you can't completely fuck up?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They distribute census data for free, and this seems to be about the same data set, maybe even a bit more restricted. So long as the money they are making is going to pay for part of the ACA, or at least into government coffers, rather than to line the pockets of the companies that developed the software, I don't have a huge problem with it.

If it wasn't personally identifiable information you would be right.

 

[NobleSavage]

They distribute census data for free, and this seems to be about the same data set, maybe even a bit more restricted. So long as the money they are making is going to pay for part of the ACA, or at least into government coffers, rather than to line the pockets of the companies that developed the software, I don't have a huge problem with it.

If it wasn't personally identifiable information you would be right.

I'm a little confused, is the census data anonymized? Even if it's the same data it's a bad idea for a bunch of reasons. The prime one being if you are in charge of health care records you need to set a precedent of not selling data. That is just straight up leadership 101. There should also be a fucking law against comparing databases with the intent to de-anonymize.

 

[NobleSavage]

As I sit here saying "I told you so", I wonder if this would cause anyone to rethink their support of this program and similarly invasive programs.

I doubt it.

I'm not a bit surprised, just very disappointed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it wasn't personally identifiable information you would be right.

I'm a little confused, is the census data anonymized? Even if it's the same data it's a bad idea for a bunch of reasons. The prime one being if you are in charge of health care records you need to set a precedent of not selling data. That is just straight up leadership 101. There should also be a fucking law against comparing databases with the intent to de-anonymize.

The census data is anonymized, I have no problem with it.

The Healthcare.gov stuff involves tracking cookies.

 

[barbos]

Do they now track porn sites people visit?

 

[NobleSavage]

The census data is anonymized, I have no problem with it.

Good, that's what I thought.

The Healthcare.gov stuff involves tracking cookies.

That is what I thought as well, but the article didn't come right out and say it.

 

[NobleSavage]

Do they now track porn sites people visit?

Yes, however, it's been a while since I looked into it. Generally adult has their own networks and there is little if any cross pollination with the mainstream networks. The majority of traffic is controlled by one company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindGeek