DEF CON's Hacker-In-Chief Faces Fortune In Medical Bills 94
The Register's Connor Jones reports: Marc Rogers, DEF CON's head of security, faces tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills following an accident that left him with a broken neck and temporary quadriplegia. The prominent industry figure, whose work has spanned roles at tech companies such as Vodafone and Okta, including ensuring the story lines on Mr Robot and The Real Hustle were factually sound, is recovering in hospital. [...] Rogers said it will be around four to six weeks before he returns to basic independence and is able to travel, but a full recovery will take up to six months. He begins a course of physical therapy today, but his insurance will only cover the first of three required weeks, prompting friends to set up a fundraiser to cover the difference.
Rogers has an impressive cyber CV. Beginning life in cybersecurity back in the '80s when he went by the handle Cjunky, he has gone on to assume various high profile roles in the industry. In addition to the decade leading Vodafone UK's cybersecurity and being the VP of cybersecurity strategy at Okta, as already mentioned, Rogers has also worked as head of security at Cloudflare and founded Vectra, among other experiences. Now he heads up security at DEF CON, is a member of the Ransomware Taskforce, and is the co-founder and CTO at AI observability startup nbhd.ai.
If you hadn't heard of him from any of these roles, or from his work in the entertainment biz, he's also known for his famous research into Apple's Touch ID sensor, which he was able to compromise on both the iPhone 5S and 6 during his time as principal researcher at Lookout. Other consumer-grade kit to get the Rogers treatment include the short-lived Google Glass devices, also while he was at Lookout, and the Tesla Model S back in 2015. "It's a sad fact that in the US GoFundMe has become the de facto standard for covering insurance shortfalls," Rogers said. "I will be forever grateful to my friends who stood it up for me and those who donated to it so that I can resume making bad guys cry as soon as feasibly possible."
The cybersecurity community has rallied together to support Rogers' fundraiser, which has accrued over $83,000 in donations. The goal is $100,000.
Rogers has an impressive cyber CV. Beginning life in cybersecurity back in the '80s when he went by the handle Cjunky, he has gone on to assume various high profile roles in the industry. In addition to the decade leading Vodafone UK's cybersecurity and being the VP of cybersecurity strategy at Okta, as already mentioned, Rogers has also worked as head of security at Cloudflare and founded Vectra, among other experiences. Now he heads up security at DEF CON, is a member of the Ransomware Taskforce, and is the co-founder and CTO at AI observability startup nbhd.ai.
If you hadn't heard of him from any of these roles, or from his work in the entertainment biz, he's also known for his famous research into Apple's Touch ID sensor, which he was able to compromise on both the iPhone 5S and 6 during his time as principal researcher at Lookout. Other consumer-grade kit to get the Rogers treatment include the short-lived Google Glass devices, also while he was at Lookout, and the Tesla Model S back in 2015. "It's a sad fact that in the US GoFundMe has become the de facto standard for covering insurance shortfalls," Rogers said. "I will be forever grateful to my friends who stood it up for me and those who donated to it so that I can resume making bad guys cry as soon as feasibly possible."
The cybersecurity community has rallied together to support Rogers' fundraiser, which has accrued over $83,000 in donations. The goal is $100,000.
Re:Remind me again (Score:4, Funny)
why should I care?
Because he did or didn't get the covid vaccine... whichever one pisses you off more...
Re:Remind me again (Score:5, Insightful)
If he lived in a modern country, he wouldn't have to worry about those medical bills. Nothing is too much for the billionaire class while nothing is too little for the proles.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
No what is weird is that you had to shop or select your insurance at all. You're describing basic care. In first world countries basic care is mandatory to cover by every insurance plan or provided by a government plan. Somehow despite your efforts at picking a good insurance it still did nothing for your intelligence.
Me? I never gave insurance a second thought because I don't live in a shithole.
Re: (Score:2)
You are #FakeNews. According to Wikipedia this guy lives in San Francisco. Former VP of Okta, head of security at Cloudflare, principal researcher at Lookout, this guy has earned millions and doesn't deserve any financial sympathy.
Re: Remind me again (Score:1)
My thought exactly. 10s of thousands is not a "fortune" by any kind of standards. Even 100k is not a fortune. It is only a year worth of an after tax income, or less.
John Donne (Score:2)
No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
Not a medical necessity (Score:1)
Quadriplegic men can't sneak up on CEOs or fire guns.
What a Great System! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We get to pay thousands of dollars in premiums every year for the privilege of having our claims denied and then become digital beggars to cover what the insurance company should have covered in the first place! It truly is the best system money can buy.
And the best part is, any argument against it is instantly met with long rants about the importance of profit for insurers and the medical industry. We have decided as a society that profit absolutely *IS* more important than health and people. This is America. Profit comes first.
Re:What a Great System! (Score:4, Informative)
any argument against it is instantly met with long rants about the importance of profit for insurers and the medical industry.
Sadly, as public corporations, legally their primary duty/responsibility is to benefit their shareholders (and make profits). However, the ACA Medical Loss Ratio [cms.gov] "requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% or 85% of premium dollars on medical care" and if they don't, issuers are "required to provide a rebate to its customers". Sadly, this also means companies have no incentive to spend *more* than that on medical care. Noting that I have actually received several of these rebates over the past few years.
The current situation is much different from years ago when insurance companies were more likely to be non-profit organizations, like the original Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Insurance policy: How an industry shifted from protecting patients to seeking profit [stanford.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, as public corporations, legally their primary duty/responsibility is to benefit their shareholders (and make profits).
FALSE. This is an oft-repeated trope, but still a falsehood.
The corporation is legally required to follow their charter. For many corporations this is simply "make profits by doing XYZ" -but it is not a legal requirement that this be their purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
I get your point, but we're both splitting hairs. Shareholders (should) know what a corporation's focus is and a corporation following that is benefiting their shareholders. I over-generalized by including the "(and make profits)" though that's the purpose of most corporations -- often even the ones with additional priorities. It's not "FALSE", it's just too narrow an interpretation for all corporations. If their charter says to make profits, then that's their legal requirement. Insurance companies ar
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. You are not wrong. Most corporations are incorporated to make money -but if their stated purpose in their charter is to do a bunch of stuff and make money doing it, then their primary requirements are to do the stuff. Implying it is legally required for them to put profits above other considerations is giving them undue cover for their evil deeds. It is an argument that is frequently repeated by those who are trying to evade responsibility, and we should not repeat it.
Re:What a Great System! (Score:4, Informative)
No, the complaints are because the insurance scam is self-perpetuating because there's too many jobs on the line.
Hospitals having more administration workers handling insurance than doctors. Doctors offices needing a dedicated person handling insurance. And the insurance companies themselves. All are basically drains on the system that don't add value.
It's why single payer systems can get more healthcare with less money - because there's no self-sustaining insurance industry and entire divisions at hospitals and workers at doctors offices handling basically what is useless work pushing paper around.
But of course, if you ask anyone, those hundreds of thousands of people will then be out of work at insurance companies, hospitals, and doctor's offices.
It's the ultimate make-work scheme, and removing it unfortunately is almost impossible because you now have lots of people dependent on wasting money in this fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think that's very true.
And I don't mean to oversimplify, but maybe it’s also that the society and the institutions are a reflection of the individuals. It's easy to blame corporations -- they are, in a sense, psychopathic, by the profit rule -- but then corporations are made of people, and people will also protect their own interests.
I can only imagine that people on average would have to develop a lot more integrity. It would take a lot to walk away from a job purely because you realise
Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:5, Informative)
Because Republicans
Re: (Score:2)
Because Republicans
Were those in power during the last 4 years?
Re:Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:4, Insightful)
Through the use of the Senate filibuster, yes. (You need 60% of all the senators to end debate on a bill). It's called rule by the minority party, and it cuts both ways.
Re: (Score:3)
Through the use of the Senate filibuster, yes. (You need 60% of all the senators to end debate on a bill). It's called rule by the minority party, and it cuts both ways.
Also, if expanding public healthcare would require raising taxes the problems are (a) also Republicans and (b) Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (the Origination Clause) provides that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" -- currently also controlled by Republicans, but recently having very narrow margins regardless of which party is in control. And running the House is like herding feral cats, some w/dain bramage.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does this matter? The health care industry fixes will require decades to fix. Remember, the president and administration do not have power to unilaterally change an entire industry, we elect presidents and not kings. We did try some basic fixes but single payer options were roundly rejected, even the sensible Romney/Obamacare were roundly criticized and the upcoming president previously promised to dismantle the whole thing (leaving millions without insurance), and possibly he'll try again.
An insuran
Re: (Score:2)
Es una tonteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Any attempt at national healthcare would get stonewalled and if that didn't work it would get pushed to the supreme court. The justices will cite 16th century texts about witches to determine that you can't have healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
When Democrats had the votes, instead of giving us single payer healthcare they instead rolled out insurance aka ACA , but that's what the Democrats passed with zero votes from Republicans.
So sure, Republicans are at fault, but that doesn't mean the Democrats did any better when given a chance.
So by all means, keep thinking one party will save you while the other party is hitler devil or whatever you want to call the orange cheetos. I mean, if he was so bad, why the fuck couldn't you possibly beat him in th
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is, it's both sides fault, but you wanted to look like it was only the Republicans that caused it.
Re:Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:4, Informative)
If there were only Democrats, and therefore median Democrat became policy, there would (probably) be single payer.
If there were only Republicans and median Republican became policy then there (probably) wouldn't be single payer.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are a block.
In the 90s when single payer was discussed Democrats took a beating in the mid terms, and Democrats have been afraid to bring it up again. So in the end I'd say it's the voters fault/the system working as intended (for better or for worse).
Re:Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't have the votes for single payer at any point since the first time they considered it in 1993.
Re: (Score:2)
Do keep in mind that the ideas behind the Affordable Care Act were originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank). The intent was to cover the unpaid care already being handed out to pretty much anyone who walked in to a hospital.
Yes, we have nearly universal care here in the USA. Whether you can pay or not. But no, we will not pay for your gender affirming care. Leading this policy are a number of EU countries (and the UK). The ones everyone is holding up as shining examples of
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we have nearly universal care here in the USA. Whether you can pay or not.
Largely thanks to GoFundMe apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
This old canard has always been a wild exaggeration. "Medical exchanges" are pretty much where the similarities end. Heritage wanted exchanges governed by the state. ACA are exchanges with required standards mandated by the federal government. And the other 2000 pages or so (Medicare, Medicaid expansion, additional taxes, and all that other nonsense) certainly wasn
Re: Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:2)
Chronic condition care represents more than half of all helathcare dollars, and you can't walk into an ER to get it. We do not have universal healthcare in the US.
Re: Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:2)
Apparently nobody pays for the risk that you might be diagnosed with a chronic disease that will cost tens of thousands of dollars a year for a lifetime. Otherwise, changing jobs and going to work in a small shop wouldn't be met with the bad news next January to all employees that their portion of health insurance premiums are going up $100/week.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, someone is absolutely paying for it.
I have had such a disease for 18 years, and so does my husband. It's called HIV. Currently our meds retail for about $50k/year for each of us without insurance.
We should have a normal life expectancy, so we'll be on meds for another 30 years.
I have made sure to work only for tech giants for the vast majority of my career. There is no concern about one family affecting the average employee's premium in a meaningful way.
I have never even considered working for a startup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But also lots of promises to try and rollback previous reforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unless anyone with an R in front of their name dies of bird flu.
Re: (Score:3)
Because employers, insurance companies, and the government would rather keep the status quo. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep it as it is.
Of course it also doesn't help that most Americans don't know it can be better. And they are deathly afraid of anything which is provided by the government, because they're used to the government treating them with contempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:4, Insightful)
But combine with that the active propaganda being spread that all alternative methods are worse. Ie, our broken system is tauted as being better than all other health care system in the entire world. Because it's heretical blasphemy to claim we're not the best nation that was, is, or ever will exist.
Re: (Score:3)
When Canada first began work to implement the framework for universal healthcare, there was a lot of fear and fearmongering here as well. In fact I think this is as close as Canada came to a civil war. Fortunately cool heads prevailed and it was implemented, for which I am grateful. Unfortunately I don't know how long we'll have it for yet as "conservative" governments across the country are pushing hard to dismantle it and bring in US-style insurance. Costs are rising and even liberal governments are h
Re: (Score:3)
I think most if not all small employers would much rather not spend their time managing health insurance benefits for their employees. It's a big administrative burden.
Large employers use benefits as a competitive advantage, and some may prefer the status quo, even though a publicly funded scheme would save money. Of course, the large companies have more sway politically.
Over 50% of the US population supports Medicare for all. The representation in Congress unfortunately does not reflect this.
Re: (Score:2)
Large companies also get lower rates due to their larger groups. It allows them to provide the benefit for less money.
If we're going to go with the system we have but make it work we should force all healthcare to go through the marketplace. It would keep the market place groups from skewing to more expensive than the general population, and also force insurers to actually provide plans there.
We should probably drop the bronze plans too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm aware the large companies get lower rates. That is one of the many problems in the current system.
I disagree with your prescription. Private insurers are unnecessary middlemen, and should not exist, not should the marketplace. Healthcare should be paid for through mandatory taxes. There should be no captive provider networks. Coverage should be completely independent of employment.
Re: (Score:3)
Go Fund Me is insurance. It's a method for spreading risk among a larger group. It has a few of unique features: claims are edjudicated in a distributed manner, premiums are optional, and awards are based on how likeable and/or famous the claimant is.
Seems very American, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. It's 100% optional. Freedum!
At least monetarily. You might find it advisable to get famous, hot or popular if you want to increase your payout in the event you need it. I suppose you could count that effort as a premium.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you vote this problem away. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Because medical care is so expensive here that even the government can't afford it.
Re: Crowdsourcing health insurance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the feds do a pretty bad job. Medicare payout rates are at maybe 85% and dropping. Still better than Medicaid and its average payout rate of 78%, but certainly not perfect. And if you don't have supplemental insurance, there's entire classes of treatments that Medicare won't cover.
Re: (Score:2)
Being backwards like that comes from a deep appreciation of greed and a completely unfounded belief in your own superiority.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the GOP has convinced poor Americans that health care for everyone isn't fair to those who currently get health care tied to employment. It must be only the unemployed that need health care and the GOP considers the unemployed potential prison labor.
The USA is the first world leader in (Score:4, Insightful)
...indebting people for medical costs.
Avoiding medical debt is like trying to cross a room with rat traps covering every square inch of the floor while barefoot. (Sometimes even when you have insurance).
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot those few p0arts parts of the floor not covered in rat traps have lego pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
BS-1363 UK mains AC power plugs with the prongs facing up would be better than legos ;)
hold up, you mean (Score:3, Insightful)
you mean a guy with bonafides like those since the 80's can't afford medical treatment? Oh wait, that's right, the health insurance business is bigger than every other business in the world. Bigger than oil, coal, semiconductors, cars, tourism and the weapons business. A business that big can't benefit anyone but the top shareholders and executives and the politicians who are in their pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
I am glad I have a non-profit HMO system. It's cheaper, fewer questions asked,it's proactive instead of reactive, and it covers these things. But still people are afraid of such a system, because... I don't know why. Maybe because it got a bad rap in the 70s? (Kaiser Permanente)
Re: hold up, you mean (Score:2)
I am with Kaiser too, and very happy with all the care for my chronic conditions, except for one specialty. I'll let you guess which one from my username. I am forced to go out of network for some of it.
Re: (Score:2)
He could, he probably just isn't carrying enough cash on him to pay stuff up front. And there's no telling how he spent his money over the years.
Health insurance only for celebrities? (Score:1)
"It's a sad fact that in the US GoFundMe has become the de facto standard for covering insurance shortfalls,"
Certainly, but those running "GoFundME" campaigns to cover insurance shortfalls help to cement the status quo. Just like those paying tips in restaurants are basically providing employers an excuse for not offering livable wages.
Also, there are certainly many affected by insurance shortfalls, who are not even mildly famous for anything, and I wonder why one would donate to a campaign for a celebrity while ignoring the misery of all the other ones affected. Especially since (a) the accident was not somehow
Re: Health insurance only for celebrities? (Score:2)
We're #1 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
>And my American friends wonder why I am not interested in living in the USA. In what other civilized first world country would this be a news story?
None I know of, and I've travelled a lot.
Stop wining and take off your white hat (Score:2, Funny)
Put on your black had and Guy Fawkes mask and wreck some havoc on those who profit of this perverse medical scam.
But how will he buy shoes for his kids? (Score:3)
Sure sounds like a guy who should be able to afford $100K on his own.
Re: (Score:2)
He's probably illiquid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Or real estate he can't flip on a dime, or who knows what? People don't always plan well. Sadly the institutions we've erected to safeguard against such behavior don't work terribly well.
Re: (Score:3)
decade leading Vodafone UK's cybersecurity
Or he should have stayed in the UK where he would have gotten this medical care for no extra cost.
Nice guy (Score:2)
Fight the government (Score:2)
It's not a "shortfall", it's fraud: In any other country, the not-bribed politicians would be doing something. All those Americans claiming they need guns to fight the government are dishonest: This is serious inaction and no-one is literally, up "in arms".
Besides the American attitude that discriminatory laws don't apply to "me", anti-socialism means American's lives are controlled by corporations more than by government. It is ridiculous that holiday pay, pensions and healthcare are luxuries an empl
Re: (Score:2)
You really want to go up against a government which has guns such as the M134 minigun.
No. This has to be solved by more subtle non-violent means.
The people of America have elected who they think who will solve their problems for them. They may be right, but they'd also might not get what they wished for.
Re: (Score:1)
Time after time has proven rigid military doctrines can't defeat boots on the ground guerilla insurgencies
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The people of America have elected who they think who will solve their problems for them. They may be right, but they'd also might not get what they wished for.
There are too many problems, and only two choices to vote for neither of whom will do anything about the vast majority of problems.
People can't vote for a candidate who they think will solve their problems because neither of them are even pretending to, all they can do is vote against the candidate they think will be the worst of the two bad options.
hmm (Score:1)
Who cares? (Score:1)
Why did he need this? (Score:2)
Seems oddly absent from the info we did see. I mean how many people break their necks period? Not many.
If it was an accident, they'd have said so to garner sympathy. But it's also surprising to consider them trying to hide anything, such as "them being obviously stupid first" (since there is no way to cover something that big up, right?).
Seems like they'd be a fairly wealthy and successful person. With reserves of their own to call upon. But I know times have changed too.
Don't know this person, and gen