4 ms·

Government sites shouldn't load any third party content.

by nullc 2y ago

xeromal 2y ago
I assume they are because they're broke
- financetechbro 2y ago
  Government agencies are not meant to be profitable
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Tell that to the people who keep getting elected. Takes time to repair poor decisions resulting from electorate whims. https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/04/senators-call-postal-board-abandon-dejoys-usps-reforms/396048/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/04/senators-call-pos... https://fortune.com/2024/04/10/usps-dejoy-price-hikes-customer-dissatisfaction/ https://fortune.com/2024/04/10/usps-dejoy-price-hikes-custom... | https://archive.is/b03We https://archive.is/b03We
    - xeromal 2y ago
      Yup, it's hard to fault the postal service when the game is rigged against them from congress.
  - galaxyLogic 2y ago
    Right. And they are meant (?) to be transparent. Only individual's information must be kept private.
  - AceJohnny2 2y ago
    Uselessly tied up budget and so many strings attached is functionally identical to broke. I have a friend who works at USGS in California, the folks who track (among other things) volcanic and tectonic activity on the west side of the US (that includes Yellowstone). For their field trips, they have a daily stipend for food & lodging of ~$100 IIRC. If you know the cost of lodging, you can understand how that's a ridiculously small amount.
    - abduhl 2y ago
      Per diem rates can be looked up at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-trip/per-diem-rates https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-trip/per-diem-rates. The standard combined rate is $166: $107 for lodging and $59 for meals and incidentals. This is adjusted for high COL locations. Many hotels have a deal with the government where rates are subsidized. Government employees should pay no taxes on their stays. So yeah, they’re not staying at the Ritz on government business (and they shouldn’t be!) but it’s not like they’re living in a tent.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        That's still a small amount for many/most locations. It's certainly less than I'd pay myself out of pocket,
        abduhl 2y ago
        Don’t take this the wrong way but I don’t think that the average HN poster’s view on lodging/expenses is the correct gauge for what’s an appropriate per diem for your average government worker on a business trip. And if the government worker wants to travel for work like a consultant or a FAANG employee then they can of course pay out of pocket.
        ghaff 2y ago
        Maybe. Unless I'm being wined and dined by a client, my expenses have been pretty middle-brow business lodging and restaurants in general. I'm not sure I'd expect a government employee to be going the Motel 6 and McDonald's route just because they work for the government.
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
    OK. How do you propose to fix the current situation, then? Completely impractical “yeah, but”-isms basically turn HN into an online political rally. This isn’t thoughtful conversation.
gosub100 2y ago
USPS is not the government, they are one of the world's most prolific spammers.
- toast0 2y ago
  How do you figure? Establishing Post Offices is a Constitutionally enumerated power of Congress, and the USPS exists as a Federal Agency since the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 [1]: > The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act
  - lacksconfidence 2y ago
    While I don't necessarily agree, the argument is that the 1970 postal reorganization act required the postal office to be self funded, and that since they are not funded with any federal dollars they are somewhere between a government service and a private service. Some argue that because of this we have seen a significant degredation in the quality of mail, because the USPS explicitly and intentionally delivers the equivilent of spam mail to every address in the country. They do this as a form of generating revenue that wouldn't be required of a proper government service. This ties into the current post as it seems plausible the reason USPS shares customer data with Meta is due to their requirement of self funding.
    - samatman 2y ago
      > since they are not funded with any federal dollars they are somewhere between a government service and a private service. This argument makes no sense at all to me (I did catch the part where you don't necessarily agree either btw). There's no law which says that everything a government does has to be run at a pure loss on tax revenue. Many local utilities are owned by their respective governments, and are not infrequently run at a modest profit. That doesn't make them private, it makes them profitable. > Some argue that because of this we have seen a significant degredation in the quality of mail, because the USPS explicitly and intentionally delivers the equivalent of spam mail to every address in the country. This is quite possibly the case, but has no bearing on whether or not USPS is a government entity, which, it is. > This ties into the current post as it seems plausible the reason USPS shares customer data with Meta is due to their requirement of self funding. This, I do not consider plausible at all. I'm 99% sure that some youngster working on the digital side of USPS added some tracking pixels because it's all they knew how to do.
reaperducer 2y ago
Government sites shouldn't load any third party content. For a work project, I recently had to visit about 200 government web sites from countries all over the world. It's surprising how many of them not only load third-party content, but actually have banner and pop-over advertising on them, especially in Asia and Africa. By comparison, even America's worst government web site¹ is better. ¹ https://njfamilycare.dhs.state.nj.us https://njfamilycare.dhs.state.nj.us
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Seeing a page like that is refreshing these days. Loaded in a fraction of a second on my cellphone. Healthcare.gov on the other hand shows a blank screen on firefox mobile for ios.
  - wepple 2y ago
    At first I kinda recoiled at the horror of 1990s color. But then, yeah, it loads fast and does what it needs to do. I don’t think I’d want my taxpayer money getting some hip design studio to “modernize” it.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Wow, it's not even .gov
  - davchana 2y ago
    I think the .us registry regulates the state name abbreviation subdomains, and school districts and county levels. I agree, not as good as .gov tld, but still, a layman lile me cant get a example.ca.us without some kind of proof showing actual connection with California government. (Not that California uses .ca.us, it uses .ca.gov)
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    Wow, it's not even .gov For a long time, .gov was for the federal government only. In the days before search engines, people knew that their state's home page was state.xx.us. Lots of people memorized URLs back then, the way it was ordinary to know dozens of phone numbers off the top of your head. I planned many a road trip by typing in travel.state.xx.us for the various states I planned to visit.
dheera 2y ago
I couldn't buy I-bonds from the US Treasury website because they are using a third party identity verification. WTF? Third parties can't verify me, I've infiltrated private companies with nonsense to protect my privacy. Ask the IRS, DMV, DHS, or USCIS instead to verify me, damnit.
- fortran77 2y ago
  U.S. Savings bonds are something you "set and forget" and don't check up on them for decades. I had a HELL of a time acessing my online account (had to get someone from my congressman's office to get a Treasury Department manager on my case) to check my bonds that I bought in 2003 and, yes, I had my username, password, and the second factor stored in my safe deposit box, and access to the email I used to sign up for it. The problem was the Treasury obsoleted the second factor they issued in 2003 (a physical lookup card with numbers on it) and I had to reverify myself. They couldn't log me in with the information I used to log into Treasury Direct two decades ago. Reverification required entering information like the Driver's Licence number I had in 2003 and the DL expiration date of my 2003 licence (I don't know! It was in another state and I no longer have it) and some other security questions I apparently answered when signing up and short-sightedly didn't write down ("Favorite Vacation Destination") Good luck logging in to check your iBonds 30 years from now! The don't issue paper bonds anymore to anyone. Maybe they're hoping for "breakage" -- people will simply forget they own them!
gnopgnip 2y ago
Are there any government sites that are doing this right?

Government sites shouldn't load any third party content.

by nullc 2y ago

Government sites shouldn't load any third party content.

xeromal 2y ago

I assume they are because they're broke

financetechbro 2y ago
Government agencies are not meant to be profitable
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Tell that to the people who keep getting elected. Takes time to repair poor decisions resulting from electorate whims. https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/04/senators-call-postal-board-abandon-dejoys-usps-reforms/396048/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/04/senators-call-pos... https://fortune.com/2024/04/10/usps-dejoy-price-hikes-customer-dissatisfaction/ https://fortune.com/2024/04/10/usps-dejoy-price-hikes-custom... | https://archive.is/b03We https://archive.is/b03We
  - xeromal 2y ago
    Yup, it's hard to fault the postal service when the game is rigged against them from congress.
- galaxyLogic 2y ago
  Right. And they are meant (?) to be transparent. Only individual's information must be kept private.
- AceJohnny2 2y ago
  Uselessly tied up budget and so many strings attached is functionally identical to broke. I have a friend who works at USGS in California, the folks who track (among other things) volcanic and tectonic activity on the west side of the US (that includes Yellowstone). For their field trips, they have a daily stipend for food & lodging of ~$100 IIRC. If you know the cost of lodging, you can understand how that's a ridiculously small amount.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    Per diem rates can be looked up at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-trip/per-diem-rates https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-trip/per-diem-rates. The standard combined rate is $166: $107 for lodging and $59 for meals and incidentals. This is adjusted for high COL locations. Many hotels have a deal with the government where rates are subsidized. Government employees should pay no taxes on their stays. So yeah, they’re not staying at the Ritz on government business (and they shouldn’t be!) but it’s not like they’re living in a tent.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      That's still a small amount for many/most locations. It's certainly less than I'd pay myself out of pocket,
      - abduhl 2y ago
        Don’t take this the wrong way but I don’t think that the average HN poster’s view on lodging/expenses is the correct gauge for what’s an appropriate per diem for your average government worker on a business trip. And if the government worker wants to travel for work like a consultant or a FAANG employee then they can of course pay out of pocket.
        ghaff 2y ago
        Maybe. Unless I'm being wined and dined by a client, my expenses have been pretty middle-brow business lodging and restaurants in general. I'm not sure I'd expect a government employee to be going the Motel 6 and McDonald's route just because they work for the government.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  OK. How do you propose to fix the current situation, then? Completely impractical “yeah, but”-isms basically turn HN into an online political rally. This isn’t thoughtful conversation.

gosub100 2y ago

USPS is not the government, they are one of the world's most prolific spammers.

toast0 2y ago
How do you figure? Establishing Post Offices is a Constitutionally enumerated power of Congress, and the USPS exists as a Federal Agency since the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 [1]: > The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act
- lacksconfidence 2y ago
  While I don't necessarily agree, the argument is that the 1970 postal reorganization act required the postal office to be self funded, and that since they are not funded with any federal dollars they are somewhere between a government service and a private service. Some argue that because of this we have seen a significant degredation in the quality of mail, because the USPS explicitly and intentionally delivers the equivilent of spam mail to every address in the country. They do this as a form of generating revenue that wouldn't be required of a proper government service. This ties into the current post as it seems plausible the reason USPS shares customer data with Meta is due to their requirement of self funding.
  - samatman 2y ago
    > since they are not funded with any federal dollars they are somewhere between a government service and a private service. This argument makes no sense at all to me (I did catch the part where you don't necessarily agree either btw). There's no law which says that everything a government does has to be run at a pure loss on tax revenue. Many local utilities are owned by their respective governments, and are not infrequently run at a modest profit. That doesn't make them private, it makes them profitable. > Some argue that because of this we have seen a significant degredation in the quality of mail, because the USPS explicitly and intentionally delivers the equivalent of spam mail to every address in the country. This is quite possibly the case, but has no bearing on whether or not USPS is a government entity, which, it is. > This ties into the current post as it seems plausible the reason USPS shares customer data with Meta is due to their requirement of self funding. This, I do not consider plausible at all. I'm 99% sure that some youngster working on the digital side of USPS added some tracking pixels because it's all they knew how to do.

reaperducer 2y ago

Government sites shouldn't load any third party content. For a work project, I recently had to visit about 200 government web sites from countries all over the world. It's surprising how many of them not only load third-party content, but actually have banner and pop-over advertising on them, especially in Asia and Africa. By comparison, even America's worst government web site¹ is better. ¹ https://njfamilycare.dhs.state.nj.us https://njfamilycare.dhs.state.nj.us

kjkjadksj 2y ago
Seeing a page like that is refreshing these days. Loaded in a fraction of a second on my cellphone. Healthcare.gov on the other hand shows a blank screen on firefox mobile for ios.
- wepple 2y ago
  At first I kinda recoiled at the horror of 1990s color. But then, yeah, it loads fast and does what it needs to do. I don’t think I’d want my taxpayer money getting some hip design studio to “modernize” it.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
Wow, it's not even .gov
- davchana 2y ago
  I think the .us registry regulates the state name abbreviation subdomains, and school districts and county levels. I agree, not as good as .gov tld, but still, a layman lile me cant get a example.ca.us without some kind of proof showing actual connection with California government. (Not that California uses .ca.us, it uses .ca.gov)
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Wow, it's not even .gov For a long time, .gov was for the federal government only. In the days before search engines, people knew that their state's home page was state.xx.us. Lots of people memorized URLs back then, the way it was ordinary to know dozens of phone numbers off the top of your head. I planned many a road trip by typing in travel.state.xx.us for the various states I planned to visit.

dheera 2y ago

I couldn't buy I-bonds from the US Treasury website because they are using a third party identity verification. WTF? Third parties can't verify me, I've infiltrated private companies with nonsense to protect my privacy. Ask the IRS, DMV, DHS, or USCIS instead to verify me, damnit.

fortran77 2y ago
U.S. Savings bonds are something you "set and forget" and don't check up on them for decades. I had a HELL of a time acessing my online account (had to get someone from my congressman's office to get a Treasury Department manager on my case) to check my bonds that I bought in 2003 and, yes, I had my username, password, and the second factor stored in my safe deposit box, and access to the email I used to sign up for it. The problem was the Treasury obsoleted the second factor they issued in 2003 (a physical lookup card with numbers on it) and I had to reverify myself. They couldn't log me in with the information I used to log into Treasury Direct two decades ago. Reverification required entering information like the Driver's Licence number I had in 2003 and the DL expiration date of my 2003 licence (I don't know! It was in another state and I no longer have it) and some other security questions I apparently answered when signing up and short-sightedly didn't write down ("Favorite Vacation Destination") Good luck logging in to check your iBonds 30 years from now! The don't issue paper bonds anymore to anyone. Maybe they're hoping for "breakage" -- people will simply forget they own them!

gnopgnip 2y ago

Are there any government sites that are doing this right?