ICE shared Medicaid data it wasn't supposed to have with Palantir
92 points
8 hours ago
| 4 comments
| npr.org
| HN
Jimmc414
7 hours ago
[-]
The government's stated remediation for the Palantir transfer was that the data had been shared over a Microsoft Teams chat and was deleted from the chat. That is not a deletion.

According to CMS's security program documentation, Medicare and Medicaid are a covered entities under HIPAA, subject to 60 day notice to affected individuals, reporting to HHS OCR, and notice to media outlets when a breach affects more than 500 residents of a state.

Not to mention this violated a standing court order.

https://security.cms.gov/learn/cms-breach-response-handbook

reply
SirFatty
6 hours ago
[-]
I'm sure they did, and a lot more besides. So what? What is anyone going to do about it? Congress certainly doesn't give a fig.
reply
kittikitti
7 hours ago
[-]
HIPPA privacy laws are rarely enforced against corporations and government. These laws are meant to suppress whoever they want to. It's baffling how they continue to get away with this until you realize that the United States is a banana republic.
reply
techteach00
5 hours ago
[-]
This is why we're never going to get anywhere. According to liberal establishment media Palantir is bad because of the ICE connection. Many of these same voters and media platforms would have been in favor of Palantir working with the FBI to apprehended January 6th rioters.

This is a serious problem that nobody has figured out how to address. The complete lack of principles.

reply
bakies
5 hours ago
[-]
Any examples? I certainly don't like that they're involved in any capacity. I'd rather the FBI just do some good ol' fashion police work to apprehend those traitors of democracy.
reply
techteach00
4 hours ago
[-]
See you proved my point. You know the tools the FBI uses. I'm sure their in bed with Palantir too.

Police state against my enemies but not me and the good guys. It's all so tiresome.

reply
bakies
4 hours ago
[-]
My enemies? I don't have enemies. Normal people don't have enemies. Those people are criminal insurrectionists.
reply
jazzyjackson
4 hours ago
[-]
Just curious, where would you say the line is between “police state” and “a state with police”
reply
mingus88
3 hours ago
[-]
Are you serious with this question?
reply
jazzyjackson
3 hours ago
[-]
No I just thought the parent poster was also unserious
reply
AnimalMuppet
4 hours ago
[-]
Wikipedia says that in a police state, the government exerts an extreme amount of control over society and individuals. That leaves "extreme" undefined, though, so it's subjective. (Also, you know, Wikipedia.)

I'm not the one you asked, but: Me, personally, I'd draw the line at the independence of the courts. If the courts are independent, if they can rule against the police for failure to prove their case or for procedural violations or whatever, then it's not a police state. If the police win the borderline cases (or worse, the clearly bogus cases) just because they're the police, then it's a police state.

reply
chaps
3 hours ago
[-]
Do you think the courts are independent?

Followup question:

Do you think public defenders are given adequate funding to ensure they can give proper defense to their clients?

reply
AnimalMuppet
1 hour ago
[-]
Yes, I think courts are independent. No, I do not think that public defenders are adequate.
reply