Healthcare.gov struggles to support the Affordable Healthcare Act process

Having a lot of experience with large web-based sites, I have been following the struggles of HealthCare.gov with interest.  HealthCare.gov is the federal site for the Affordable Healthcare Act (nicknamed "Obamacare").  Leading up to October 1, 2013, I feared that the site would encounter severe difficulties.  There was no doubt in my mind that millions of individuals, attempting to access any complex web site, would cause severe problems. 

Think about it:

1. Millions of users, with (at a minimum) tens of thousands of simultaneous users
2. It needs to support numerous languages
3. Because of the wide range of users, it must support web accessibility, referred to as "Section 508". (Section508.gov, Wikipedia, W3C)
4. It must operate as a web application (no matter what the back-end programming language is)
5. It must scale, and scale fast.
6. It must run as lightly as it possibly can, in order to avoid overloading the web servers.

Additionally, security would be crucial:

1. It must run over SSL, for encryption
2. It must store all data securely, probably with extra safe-guards to protect the data from prying eyes.
3. It will certainly be a target of small-scale DoS attacks, since there is a lot of political charge revolving around the concept

The site has been (sort of) operational for a full week, now, and my concerns have certainly been realized.  The HealthCare.gov Home page performs fine, but attempting to get to the application section of the site gives you a message saying "The system is down at the moment." 

I certainly feel for the plight of the development team.  Attempting to improve the performance of a production site can be exceptionally difficult.

CD

Unlocking A New Cell Phone Will Soon Be Illegal...

Beginning Saturday, January 26, 2013, you will no longer be allowed to unlock (jailbreak) a new cell phone unless your carrier explicitly allows it.

The Library of Congress, based on recommendations by the Register of Copyrights (Wikipedia), dictates what constitutes a legitimate exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA).  In a rule titled "Exception to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies", published on October 26, 2012, the Library of Congress determined that actions, such as unlocking a phone, do not constitute an exception.  As such, the firmware contained on the phone is considered copyrighted work and, therefore, is protected.  The details of the recommendation can be found in section "III. The Designated Classes", sub-section "C. Wireless Telephone Handsets--Interoperability With Alternative Networks".

Part of the reasoning is that you can readily purchase unlocked phones, albeit at a much higher cost.  But, for subsidized phones, the carrier can enforce rules regarding what you can do.

The new rules will affect phones purchased on/after January 26, 2013.

In 2010, it was believed that the owner of the phone, not the carrier, actually owned the copy of the software running on the phones.  Copyright court cases since 2010 have provided precedent that argues that  a software user is a licensee of the software, rather than an owner of a copy.  This allows the copyright owner to restrict the user's use of the software, including alterations to the software.  That extends to the firmware that most phones operate under.

I strongly suggest that you contact your cell phone carrier or consult their support web site for how they will apply the ruling.  I suspect that, for non-iPhone phones, there will be a policy in place which bars the owner from unlocking their new phone for a certain period of time, such as the first 90-days of a new contract.

There is a petition to ask the Whitehouse to weigh in on the issue:  "We Petition The Obama Administration To:  Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal".  It still needs to get 100,000 votes by February 23, 2013.  I recommend that you take a few moments and add your name to the petition.




CD

Windows Vista / Windows 7: "Offline files" is different from "Shared Folder Synchronization"

I produced my Windows Vista / Windows 7: How to access a networked drive while offline... blog entry in response to an issue that arose at my job (plug:  remember that I work for Berico Technologies and I am working at a client's site).  There is a real need for offline access to certain files.  Naturally, Microsoft's Sync Center and its support for offline file and folder access is the perfect fit.

I know... you are waiting for the "But....." aren't you....

But, it is possible that the user can become confused between offline access and shared folder access.  Let me explain, please.  When Microsoft released Microsoft Office Professional 2010 (Microsoft Office Professional 2010 Product Key Card 269-14834 (Google Affiliate Ad)) and Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010, they included a feature called "Shared Folder Synchronization".  This feature becomes available on the Windows Explorer right-click context menu, which is useful when you are using Microsoft SharePoint Workspace (formerly known as Microsoft Office Groove).  Here is a Wikipedia article about both of them.  Interestingly, with the release of Microsoft Office 2013, Microsoft SharePoint Workspace has been discontinued in favor of Microsoft SkyDrive Pro.

In the above image, you can see "Always available offline" and "Shared Folder Synchronization".

For "offline files", the user should only use the "Always available offline" item on the right-click context menu.  Once a folder and/or file has a check mark beside "Always available offline", a new menu item appears called "Sync".  Clicking on Sync presents a "Sync selected offline files" sub-menu.  Clicking on "Sync selected offline files" will immediately sync all offline files.

Finally, the "Sync Center", which is the central management application for offline files, can be found either on the Start Menu -> All Programs -> Accessories menu or, within Windows Explorer, under the Tools menu (which may be hidden, so press Alt + T on the keyboard).

Further information:
Microsoft:  SkyDrive
Microsoft:  What is SkyDrive Pro?

I hope this provides some clarity.

CD

Windows Vista / Windows 7: How to access a networked drive while offline...

What is the Problem:

In the modern office environment, important files are often stored on networked drives that are accessible to many people in the organization.  The convenience of networked drives cannot be denied.  Problems arise, however, when you need those files, but you are not in the office.  

What is the Solution:

Microsoft's solution to this problem is the Sync Center.  This tool will keep a synchronized, local snapshot of a network folder so that you can always have access to the files that you predetermined that you will need.  Additionally, Sync Center retains the physical file path for those files, so you do not have to remember where, locally, those files are stored.  You may have a networked file with a path of \\Server1\Project32\SDS\Task527.docx.  Once Sync Center is configured for that folder, you can access that precise folder path regardless of whether you are physically connected to the network or not.  Windows will sync that file locally and remember the original path for the file.  This allows all Windows apps which may depend upon that file, to continue to function properly regardless of network connectivity.

Sync Center is not available for Starter and Home editions of Windows Vista and Windows 7.

How to do it:

Setting Sync Center up is very easy, too.  Simply use Windows Explorer to browse to the file or folder you wish to be available offline (you must be in the parent folder of the file or folder you wish to be available).  Then, right-click on the file or folder and choose “Always Available Offline”.  Voila!!!  That file, or the contents of that folder, will now be synchronized to your local computer and available even when you are not connected to the network.  Once you return to the network, your changes will be updated to the network.

To view the Sync Center, use the Windows Explorer Tools menu.

Warning:

Because other users could change the same files that you changed while you were away from the network, Sync Center does provide a mechanism for conflict resolution.  I hope to provide more information about that at a later time.

Link(s):

Microsoft's Sync Center FAQ

CD

Berico Technologies: Safari Books Online benefit

I am currently employed by Berico Technologies, which is primarily a federal government contractor in the Washington, D.C. area.  One thing that I like about their benefits is the free access to Safari Books Online, which is an online library of over 24,000 electronic books and videos.   Over the years, I have found Safari Books Online to be an essential tool for my career.  Safari Books Online offers books on just about every technical Information Technology (IT) subject, as well as books pertaining to business and personal development.

I used to pay for access to Safari Books Online, and was very pleased when Berico Technologies began offering it to its employees starting in 2012.

CD

Is the next delectable Android desert to be "Key Lime Pie"?

Android 4.1 and 4.2, both known as "Jelly Bean", were a great success and Android 5.0 is just around the corner.

There are a lot of fresh rumors floating around that "Key Lime Pie" will be the name of the next generation of Google's Android phone OS, Android 5.0.  The rumors are based on an image released by Manu Cornet, which depicts each version of Android as an Android robot eating each desert.  The last robot in the line is clearly eating a slice of Key Lime pie.

This does not clearly indicate that the next generation of Android will be named Key Lime Pie, as the picture/comic was not officially released by Google.  However, the name does make sense and does keep with Google's naming convention for Android.

Currently, the next version of Android is supposed to be released around May 2013.

This news, coupled with the specs being published for the next generation of Android-based phones, leads me to believe that Android will continue to a leader in the mobile phone market.

Stay tuned for further updates, as we learn about the features that will be included in the release.

CD

Will Americans be "bugged"?! Dear God, will the rumors never cease?!

This is not a technical post, but it still falls under my blog's motto:  "Trying to make things clearer"

What is the Concern?
I had a discussion the other day regarding the "PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT" (also known as "ObamaCare").  The conversation revolved around the other person's sincere concern about the future of this country, especially regarding the contents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the seeming requirement that all participants would have an implanted device.  This implanted device would be used to uniquely identify that participant and, maybe, to store their medical information.  As I normally do when I do not have enough information, I presented a weak argument which basically said "I don't see how the government could hide such a thing".

Then, I had some spare time (well, not really...  I really should be in bed) to research the issue.  I found a plethora of search results warning of the end times.  Hundreds of results stating that "Obama Care" was an integral part of the Biblical end times that is found with Revelations.  The fear and concern that follows such statements are obvious to those of us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.  The resulting fear will certainly begin to cause distrust for our government.

What is my Focus?
This post is purely focused on the rumors about the ACA requiring all participants to have an implantable device.  One such rumor mill warning of the requirement for an implantable device is http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/07/hidden-obamacare-secret-rfid-chip-implants-mandatory-for-all-by-march-23-2013-2423141.html.


Cause for Concern?
Is there cause for concern?  I state, emphatically, that there is NO cause for concern.  Why?  Because the language in question only existed in HR3200, which never passed (HR4872 was the final bill passed into law, I believe).  Look it up for yourselves, folks.  I am not going to add to, or take away from, what HR3200 says.  Search for "SEC. 2561. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY" within that bill and you will find what the fuss is all about.  BUT....  and that should be a huge "BUT"....  READ THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE BILL SAYS!!!!

Context?  What is that?
Before I tackle my "context" concern, let me first say:
In our busy lives, we are often fed information that is relevant to us. And we typically settle upon certain sources of news and information, especially when the view points of those sources are aligned with our own beliefs.  That is fine, except when we accept everything that comes from that source without verifying.

Back to "context".  As a strong believer in the God of the Bible and His son, Jesus Christ, I learned a long time ago that context is ESSENTIAL in having a reasonable and valuable conversation about any portion of the Bible.  When you are discussing a single verse, the general guidance is to read the 20 versus before and the 20 verses after the verse in order to firmly establish the context of that single verse.

Well, the same context argument goes for something as large as the ACA.

(Remember: HR3200 was NEVER put into law.  HR4872 WAS put into law.  HR4872 does not contain any language regarding the medical devices that are the subject of the rumors)

Here is what I want you to do:  1)  Open the link for HR3200 and search for the text that I mentioned earlier.  2)  Once you are at that section, read the entire section.  3)  Read the following text that is my take on this section.  4)  Decide for yourself if the United States Government was really planning to get into the business of tracking you and your health records by implanting a device in you.

Will I call you ignorant and stupid if you don't agree with me?  No.  But, I will give you a really strange look if you don't agree with me.

So, America, here is what I have learned:
Let me say that I am a well established software engineer.  My job is to read very complicated documents and translate those documents into a meaningful software system which gives life to those complicated documents.  I have worked for one of the largest international law firms in the world:  Hunton & Williams.  I have worked for one of the largest financial services companies in the world:  JP Morgan Chase.  I have worked on some extensive and expansive Department Of Defense projects.  So, believe me, complicated things don't scare me.

HR3200, section "SEC. 2561. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY", does NOT (I repeat:  DOES NOT) describe implantable devices that are intended for recording information about a patient.  HR3200, Section 2561, was not the beginnings of a government conspiracy to open the door for the anti-christ, nor does it have anything to do with mark of the beast.  Believe me... If you think that, then you are completely missing the real intent of this section.

Section 2561 establishes a national device registry of all medical devices that are used in the treatment of injury and/or for sustaining of life.  The registry would have existed in order to analyze the safety and medical outcomes of the usage of medical devices in the treatment of a health condition.  The registry would have tracked devices that is currently, or has previously, been used to treat a patient.  The registry would have allowed for the safety record of those devices to be known.  The registry would have been made available to the public (excluding any patient-specific information), much like the "sex offenders" list that a lot of people keep an eye on.

Sub-section 4 of Section 2561 sheds even more light as to why this registry was in the original HR3200 bill.  There, you will read that the establishment and operation of the registry would have required that health device manufactures provide details of each medical device, such as type, model, and serial number (Sec 2561.4.A); provide a means to link the device to the ultimate health outcome of the device's usage for a patient (Sec 2561.4.B); could have required device manufacturers to submit details of a given device's safety, effectiveness, and risks of use (Sec 2561.4.C); would have established requirements for routine reports to bring to light concerns about the safety of a given device, based on trends that may come to light (Sec 2561.4.D); and, finally, would have provided a means for the public to learn the real safety of these devices (Sec 2561.4.E).

(A quick note about the mention of "implantable" in the section's text.  The type of implantable devices mentioned are pacemakers, defibrillators, and other such implantable devices which are necessary for the sustainment and/or health of the patient.)

Now, folks, this does not sound anything like "Big Brother" to me.  In fact, the ability to have a central registry of medical devices could have been exceptionally useful when a patient wants to know the real safety record of a particular defibrillator that they are about to receive.

Conclusion
The point of this posting is moot, however, because the registry does not exist in the final bill.  Most importantly, I desperately wanted to put to rest any rumors that the government had tried to slip in a "Big Brother"-style law.

I truly believe that such a registry would have been very useful to a patient who needs a defibrillator, and the doctor chooses a device with a proven safety record.

That's my take on this.  Take it or leave it.