UnitedHealth Hid Its Change Healthcare Data Breach Notice For Months (techcrunch.com) 20
Change Healthcare has hidden its data breach notification webpage from search engines using "noindex" code, TechCrunch found, making it difficult for affected individuals to find information about the massive healthcare data breach that compromised over 100 million people's medical records last year.
The UnitedHealth subsidiary said Tuesday it had "substantially" completed notifying victims of the February 2024 ransomware attack. The cyberattack caused months of healthcare disruptions and marked the largest known U.S. medical data theft.
The UnitedHealth subsidiary said Tuesday it had "substantially" completed notifying victims of the February 2024 ransomware attack. The cyberattack caused months of healthcare disruptions and marked the largest known U.S. medical data theft.
Free Luigi (Score:1, Informative)
Enough said.
jury nullification (Score:5, Insightful)
jury nullification
Re: (Score:2)
Kidding aside there's no way the prosecution (and likely the judge as well) will let anyone that gives off even the mildest hint of knowing about jury nullification anywhere near this case. If anyone does sneak in and brings it up, you can bet they'll get a contempt charge thrown at them because one of the questions that they ask potential jurors before impaneling them is whether there is any reason that
Re: jury nullification (Score:2)
Jury nullification is the law!
Good luck winning the court case though
Re: (Score:2)
No, by law the jury is supposed to render an honest verdict as to whether the defendant broke the law.
However, in order to preserve the independence of the jury, no action can be taken against jurors for their votes. So if a jury decides to practice nullification, nothing can be done about it.
Re: jury nullification (Score:2)
By law juries cannot be held responsible for their decisions.
Re:Free Luigi (Score:5, Funny)
Enough said.
Dammit. Is Luigi saying he got locked in the tower with her again?
C’mon, Mario. She ain’t no princess if ya know what I’m sayin’..
Re: (Score:2)
Warp to World 6-9 [youtube.com] was on to this angle a long time ago.
UHC / very petty / and all their adjusters cheap (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
If there were real competition in this sector, nobody would be using UHC in the first place.
If there was real competition in this sector, at least one vendor (let's use the fictional company "Change2 Nohealthcare," owned by "UnitedMoneyGrab") would go after the "hey employers, do you need to at least pretend to offer health insurance for your employees but you don't want to spend much on it, have I got a deal for you" segment of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
My sentiments exactly. They might as well be banks the way they extract money from the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some employers only offer 1 or a few health insurance plans. Since companies typically pay for part of the health care costs of employees, they have some incentive to "go cheap."
If the employer offers employees meaningful choices, the employer may subsidize all plans by the same dollar amount. This tends to make the cheapest plans the only affordable ones for employees who are barely scraping by.
Either way, employees are incentivized to "go cheap."
Of course this becomes "penny-wise, pound-foolish" when yo
Re: (Score:3)
Employer-provided health insurance is a "temporary measure" lasting from 1946-1947 to work around Truman's wage cap program to get the GI's back into the workforce.
That's what they told us.
What, your employer doesn't offer home insurance and car insurance too? Monsters.
The truth is having captive employees is good for everybody but the people who need healthcare.
ACA was a total scam that fooled a lot of people.
But most people would rather be fooled than admit they were fooled.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to protect the United Health c-levels? (Score:2)
You know, some of these folks might need protective custody. Put them under guard, somewhere safe where access is strictly limited and their well-being can be assured 24/7. Wouldn't want to risk the murder of another United Healthcare higher-up...
Come to think of it, let's similarly protect a few dozen more c-levels in other unpopular high-profile corporations. For their own good, of course!
And not one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not one individual who was a victim of this breach will receive any compensation or direct help to reclaim their identity. Until we stiffen the penalties for security breaches all they'll get is third-rate "consumer monitoring" for a year. If you've never been a victim of ID theft, just give it time because you'll be one soon enough.
Case in point. A year ago I was driving and a phone call came in, "Hello this is so and so from your bank. I wanted to let you know that we'll have those new accounts for your grandchildren setup so they can get access in 4 days. In the meantime..." I stopped the lady on the phone. I asked again where she was from and she told me one of the suburbs of Chicago. I told her I was in Texas, didn't know who she was talking about and both of my grandkids are under the age of five. What transpired over three days were more phone calls with my bank, and banks in the Chicago area. Not to mention changing bank accounts, debit cards, credit cards etc. Not to mention, these morons were going from city to city trying to pull the same scam. Eventually, they got caught. I had to fly to Chicago on my dime, file the report with Skokie PD, and swear that I didn't know either of the individuals claiming to be my grandkids. The idiots plea dealed and were supposed to make restitution; I haven't grossed dollar one.
Yes, I also had that notorious product now owned by Norton that promises up to $1M in coverage to restore my identity. They only locked my credit. Don't use them.