Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It seems to be a mandated requirement, as opposed to some subjective UI decision. The bigger deal is that it may indicate they don't have a good enough process to check/track these federal requirements.


sort by: page size:

The issue is that many of those requirements weren't in the law authorizing this program.

IT is entirely possible the requirement was stupid, over-specified, and irrelevant, but that is beside the point.

I think it is a facetious statement to reflect how difficult meeting the regulatory requirement would be.

That may indicate a need for regulations; I don't see how it validates such regulations, particularly the medallion system.

Isn't it because this is required by the Administrative Procedures Act?

To be fair, this is a reasonable assumption based on past experience. The government normally has no shortage of rules - it literally governs us. It's not unreasonable for some people to assume that this is a disorganized or inconsistent rollout rather than a form of social engineering meant to narrow the eligibility guidelines.

I'm sure they had a good amount of debates around this. Since neither of us knows their requirements it's hard to tell why.

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I wonder if you actually read the memo from the CIO, or are just speaking ex cathedra about the requirements being given?

I would say that's an administrative issue that's a bit tangential.

It's possible this is for legislative reasons rather than anything else.

Well yes that’s the point. They’re clearly giving the middle finger to the requirement here

That's a shame. So we don't have it for bureaucratic reasons? What was the rationale behind that rule?

I don't think this is true, or the rulemaking requirement wouldn't have been limited to electronic PHI, and wouldn't have occurred in the Administrative Simplification section.

"Deems necessary, in its discretion ... to protect the integrity and stability of the registry" sounds extremely vague, though.

Not related to them wanting to do it / enforcing it, they might be required to have that in there for legal reasons.

I don't buy it.

What's wrong with the existing procedure, specifically? Why is it not adequate to view and comment on it at the time it is published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule? This is, after all, the whole point of the Federal Register.

Where was the pressure to change this rulemaking procedure over the last X years before this particular issue came up?


That doesn't explain why there must be such a restriction.

Huge potential conflict here unless the 18F consulting team that drafts the requirement is firewalled away from the bidding team.

I think once they clarify this, it would be all good.


This is a bit of weak spin on the obvious news that they probably couldn't comply with the government requirements.
next

Legal | privacy