If I understand you correctly, it is the user not the provider’s fault. I don’t, but most people do assume a site is secure to some extent. When it comes to federal sites, the money is there to obtain and maintain a high level of security. But the money is spent on parties in Vegas and other necessities.
“If I understand you correctly, it is the user not the provider’s fault. I don’t, but most people do assume a site is secure to some extent. When it comes to federal sites, the money is there to obtain and maintain a high level of security. But the money is spent on parties in Vegas and other necessities.”
Americans - dumber & dumber by the year - in general demand these sites. Not the particular user, the general user population. So every project, 1000’s of them independently, will make their web site right at the start of any project. It’s easier than doing the actual work. But really, does everything under the sun need to be worldwide accessible over the network round the clock? Snazzy colors & fonts. Why do people think so?
The money is not there. Govt. in particular will do the easy 90% of a task, and leave the final 10% - needing 90% of the effort - undone. Security on the web and Internet is non-existent without constant updates of every piece to fix new bugs, and to entirely rework the parts that cannot be fixed to some new method.
Here we have an example site. When & why was it created? Two months and nobody cares it is hacked until it hits the media? I’d say this is a worthless, unused site. Yet, it was created by some HHS (social welfare) group who believes in web sites, reflecting the general USA population’s same belief. You can expect it was discussed in meetings and not some lone functionary’s decision.
Your “spent on parties in Vegas” is simplistic and hardly true. USA people are getting exactly the govt. they deserve, the decades of idiocy implemented while they watched their TVs are starting to have effects.