2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNGP VAN says they were never alerted to such a problem,
-snip-
Just one problem: NGP VAN says they were never alerted to such a problem, and in interviews on Friday afternoon, the former Sanders data director, Josh Uretsky, says the glitch being referred to wasnt even with the VAN. It was a different program. So not only did the Sanders campaign commit a lie of omission in their fundraising email, it appears they outright lied about the earlier problem to the press. Or, at the very least, this was yet another instance where many people inside the Sanders campaign dont seem to be on the same page.
Link: http://iowastartingline.com/2015/12/19/sanders-campaigns-reckless-reaction-to-data-breach-is-a-danger-to-all-democrats/
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)[Update: However, Wasserman Schultz seemed to indicate in an interview in CNN last night that they did know about the October issue, and seems to imply it was with the VAN. Ill check to see if this is really the case, or if she didnt understand which database she was talking about.]
Things on the internet change quick! Please refer back to source
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)it's really easy to deny something if the client doesn't have any proof.
At 9:22 AM ET, Fri December 18, 2015, very early in this story, CNN reported Josh saying
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/sanders-dnc-data-breach-josh-uretsky/
"This wasn't the first time we identified a bad breach," he said, confirming to CNN that the Sanders campaign reported another breach to the DNC in October.
In Weaver's press conference, he claimed they went to the DNC over a prior breach two months ago when the vendor who provided "modeling" informed them of a breach.
I don't think there's any really sinister there. Fast moving story. They and/or the media are not going to get everything perfect.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Which means he's probably a liar to begin with. I can't believe his company was put in charge of the server to begin with, given his obvious bias.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)I encourage others to do the same.
Facts not included in this OP:
According to the article, the Sanders campaign notified the DNC in Oct, not the VAN. That means that if the DNC knew about the problem and didn't notify the VAN, then that was an egregious error(if it was an error) on their part, not the Sanders campaign.
The author of the article has worked with the VAN for years.
Although the author did have many positive things to say about Bernie, they were (not surprisingly) not included in this OP.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)WIProgressive88
(314 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)The point of the OP is that Uretsky admitted the prior glitch being referred to wasnt even with the VAN. So the conspiracy theories are based on a lie, as usual.
Cha
(297,187 posts)Write your own OP and include what you want instead of whining about someone else.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)I must be doing something right if you're giving me instructions. Best Birthday present ever! Thanks, and bless your heart. You have made this old lady's day (even if you didn't mean to-lol!).
Cha
(297,187 posts)I am nothing less than greatly honored that you've acknowledged me not once, but twice. Thanks! You're just the best!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Who are Any of us to determine Anything as we are not part of the system. Everything is an Opinion, unless we are Directly Involved.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Well that explains why NGP VAN received no prior complaints about the VAN!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...not to PGN VAN or whatever that weird name is.
Did the DNC pass it on? Who knows? But the Sanders campaign never made any other claim than they reported it to the DNC. So if it was not passed on to the vendor, that's on the DNC, not on Sanders.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Where are you getting info from?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and as for where I am getting my information, why, from post #4 in this very thread:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/sanders-dnc-data-breach-josh-uretsky/
"This wasn't the first time we identified a bad breach," he said, confirming to CNN that the Sanders campaign reported another breach to the DNC in October.
In Weaver's press conference, he claimed they went to the DNC over a prior breach two months ago when the vendor who provided "modeling" informed them of a breach.
Whether or not it was a different database, is for the vendor to deal with. Users don't always know when they are moving from one underlying database to another; it may appear just as different queries. But even if they do know, these security issues sound very similar if not identical, so you cannot dismiss October's notification to the DNC as being irrelevant. You don't know that. If the lawsuit goes forward, we will all have more information to go on.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...is for the vendor to deal with. Users don't always know when they are moving from one underlying database to another; it may appear just as different queries. But even if they do know, these security issues sound very similar if not identical, so you cannot dismiss October's notification to the DNC as being irrelevant. You don't know that. If the lawsuit goes forward, we will all have more information to go on.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Why didn't they report it this time instead of saving files until they got caught.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...between "But it wasn't a VAN breach last time!", and, when that point is addressed, "Well they made SPECIFIC searches this time!"... I assume any response to this point will result in a rebuttal of
"Well, it wasn't a VAN breach in October, so there!" -- so at this point I'll leave you to it.
TTFN
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)October wasn't a VAN breach which is why there is no record. This current breach was a VAN flaw that the Bernie campaign took advantage of and still didn't report it.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)I think he has some rat fuckers working for him.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)staffer and then he filed suit to get to the bottom of the matter. Seems to me he's hunting the ratfuckers down cold. Meanwhile the folks who deliver the occasional firewall are still taking the daily fees. Who hired that batch of bozos?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)got it
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)They are not related. Just a lie that's been circulating and replicating.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)There's no proof that he's her nephew. Regurgitating things not based in fact is not helpful to any situation.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Yes they did. Have they proven able to deliver? No, they have not. Any chance their verbiage is designed to cover their precious bottoms?
Leftyforever
(317 posts)Feeling the Bern
Cha
(297,187 posts)Patrick Dillon ?@mpdillon
Hard to see how this is just a campaign helpfully trying to alert a vendor of a problem. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-18/sanders-campaign-fires-data-director-after-breach-of-clinton-files
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/12/18/the-presidents-press-conference-4/
Pono!
Cha
(297,187 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)nt
Cha
(297,187 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Huge fail BTW. However, I'm looking forward to hearing (as I'm certain you must be also) the judge's opinion when the court looks at the suit.
Cha
(297,187 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)But your post made me laugh.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)They knew that what they were doing was wrong.
People continue to use the excuse that "they turned themselves in" (or words to that effect) as if it were some sort of proof that they meant no harm. Complete nonsense!
It means, most likely, that once they realized that their activity and identities had been detected, they had no other choice than to do so. (I'm reminded of when a convenience store's security video is released on local news ... the perpetrators know that it's only a matter of time before someone turns them in ... so they do so themselves, "voluntarily," to help minimize any punishment that's coming their way.
In truth, if these actors had been merely trying to "prove a point" or demonstrate a proof-of-concept or the methods that could be used, then they'd likely have used their iPhone to make a video recording that documented their activities. (I also know that there's real-time screen-capturing software that makes an actual video of the on-screen activity.)
Why didn't they do that? What better way to demonstrate to the world that they meant no harm and that it was just an innocent demonstration of the system's vulnerabilities?
Well, I'll tell you why. No, rather... their highly targeted and specific search queries speak for themselves!!
People continue to make hay (or try to) about the claim that "no files were downloaded" (or words to that effect). But that's a lame and transparent parsing of words. Meaningless splitting of hairs.
For example, as I access this website, I can save page after page of data. I can cut-and-paste, I perform screen-prints and save the image to file, I can save HTML files that contain an exact copy of the data that I view on the screen.
Am I "downloading" this site's entire database? Of course not!
Am I "saving system files" from this web site? No.
Do I still have the data that I wanted to keep? Well, duh! Yeah I do!
Even the initial examinations have shown that these actors have saved the data!! What more do you need?
My other favorite parsing of words and muddling definitions are the ones who claim "well her data is still there, so nobody actually 'stole' anything". Totally absurd on the face of it, yet they seem so proud at having thought-it-up all by themselves. (Oh, gag me!)
The other responses of blaming Hillary, setting-them-up, DWS collusion with Hillary, yadda-yadda-yadda, it's just misdirection and deflecting ... pathetic attempts to change the focus and change the discussion.
They reality of all this is that they have NO defense, so they only thing left at their disposal is to put up a good offense. (And by "good" I actually mean "lame".)
What a madhouse this place has become!
jfern
(5,204 posts)But the DNC and VAN are both Hillary loyalists, so I wouldn't trust either of them.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)It's quite the incestuous bunch over there, running the DNC these days.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Cha
(297,187 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=922340
Patrick Dillon ?@mpdillon
Hard to see how this is just a campaign helpfully trying to alert a vendor of a problem. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-18/sanders-campaign-fires-data-director-after-breach-of-clinton-files
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/12/18/the-presidents-press-conference-4/
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)About Us
Iowa Starting Line is a news site devoted to bringing readers breaking news, in-depth analysis, and general coverage of Iowa Caucus and Iowa political news. Founded in January of 2015 by Pat Rynard, Starting Line works to provide a unique take on the Iowa political scene that others may not be covering.
Pat Rynard is a former Democratic campaign staffer who has lived in Iowa for the past 12 years. Rynard chose to attend Drake University in order to move to Iowa and get involved in the caucuses. In his first month as a freshman he got to drive John Kerry around the state, which quickly enamored him to the ease in which you can get involved in the state. He later went on to work for Hillary Clintons 2008 presidential campaign, and has worked on a number of state legislative races in field and management roles, including serving as the statewide field director for the Senate Majority Fund.
Rynard lives in West Des Moines with his wife and their puppy.
For more, see our Welcome Post http://iowastartingline.com/about-us/
Nice, credible, unbiased source you used there