The DNC Data Breach: An Analysis

[TheProgressive]

The DNC Data Breach: An Analysis

First and foremost, the Sanders campaign did not hack the DNC database. The DNC vendor negligently altered (one way or another) the database access parameters. The ‘firewall’ in this case is just ‘parameter and security settings’. One setting says ‘given a user access code, here is what data you are allowed to access’.

The Sanders campaign informed the DNC in October that their usercodes permitted access to all campaign data. Was this just a DNC test to see what the Sanders campaign staff would do? Of course it was. The Sanders campaign staff did the right thing in October.

Let’s also note that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC are in bed with the Clinton campaign. There is so much obvious evidence to support this: the debates, DWS denying data access to the Sanders campaign, DWS rhetoric about this instance. They would do anything to help the Clinton campaign.

Is this just cover for the Clinton campaign? There is no doubt in my mind that the Clinton campaign stole Sanders and O’Malley’s data. Clinton has little to no integrity or trustworthiness and a plot like this is not beyond their tactics. “I’ll do the actual stealing of data and them blame Sanders”.

Remember that the DNC is tasked with securing the data. It is private data – not public data. The DNC and their vendor can selectively produce any evidence they want, including access logs. Note that the audit is a compiled document – a person had to read the actual audit log and interpret the data into an easy to read format.

The Sanders campaign and the public will never know what really happened because the data, audit log, and internal database workings is supplied by the DNC.

It is very suspect that the database was ‘opened up’ to all campaign access right before the debates. The DNC and the Clinton campaign had from October to plan the next data breach. It is my belief that the DNC/Clinton ‘persuaded’ the Sanders’ staffer to, this time, access the data and ‘store it’. This was the staffer who was immediately fired. Money does talk and the staffer obviously had no integrity.

What did it gain for the Clinton campaign? Clinton’s trustworthiness is in the toilet – Sanders is highly respected and trusted. What a clever way to ‘cast doubt’ on Sanders...

Every media outlet plastered the airways with the so-called ‘Sanders’ data breach. The news media purposefully reported this in such a way as to harm the Sanders campaign: the informative quotes from the Sanders campaign spokesman were not aired, but rather non-informational quotes. You also see the media run with the compiled audit as if it was 100% factual. Once again, the DNC and their vendor compiled the audit.

You see, the news media has a lot riding on who wins these campaigns. The networks make a ton of money on political advertising. And who has the most money to spend? – correct, the republicans and Clinton. It’s all about the money. And absolutely nothing gets in the way when it comes to money.

We will never know what really happened because the DNC&Clinton are the ones who own the data and the ones who provide the information about that really happened.

This was nothing more than a DNC/Clinton entrapment plot that Senator Sanders has to ‘apologize’ for. It was his staffers, with questionable integrity, that access the data and they were fired.

Just more dirty politics against the first statesperson in along time to be running for president. The real crime lies with the corrupt DNC who allowed this data access to occur.

[leftofcool]

1. Another "expert" analysis I see.

These are so amusing.

[TheProgressive]

3. Thanks.

I am a 35-year experienced software engineer and know something about database and software.

[madfloridian]

5. Thank you for the post and....

ignore the peanut gallery.

[TheProgressive]

6. I just felt it was important to present an analysis.

Thanks for your support!

[upaloopa]

10. I am an accountant and I can pick out

unsourced biased propaganda agenda supporting BS.

[TheProgressive]

12. Who owns and provides all the info on this? Correct - Clinton's DNC.

[madfloridian]

4. What a snide remark that was.

[mythology]

29. Considering the initial analysis relies on opinions presented as fact

snide is about the best it deserves. Every assumption in the "analysis" is based on the poster's preference for Sanders. So the conclusions are fundamentally flawed given that it is all designed to come to a particular conclusion.

[merrily]

41. Jury results.

FWIW, I both agree and disagree with Juror 1. I think the level of discourse has dropped here at least in part because many smart people who made this board interesting when I first joined are no longer here. However, Juror 1 is not all wrong, either.



On Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:03 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Another "expert" analysis I see.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=929214

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Tacky, gratuitous snark aimed at someone who put together a serious post. This kind of behavior is why the level of discourse here has dropped so low. DU deserves much better.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:09 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yesterday, I would have left this post alone. However, the alerter is correct. This type of rude comment is exactly the reason why the "level of discourse here has dropped so low." Perhaps juries should hide more of them.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Disturbing that you think this is hide worthy.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I resisted the temptation to hide. Snark and knee jerk source shaming is, sadly, common among certain DUers.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope, none of those things at all.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cantbeserious]

2. Thank You For Sharing These Truths

eom

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. This whole thing is a swiftboating.

Where Rove attacked Kerry for his strength (his military service) Hillary and her proxies are attacking Sanders strength - honesty and integrity.

Chickenhawk Rove successfully used the strategy to bring his opponent down to his level.

As an unrealistic a goal as that might seem, the DNC is attempting to do the same to Sanders.

[TheProgressive]

13. I think people are smart enough to know what happened here...

Yes, nothing but dirty and desperate politics from the DNC.

[KittyWampus]

17. Bernie? The guy who lambasted PAC's and then thanked one for spending money on his behalf?

The guy who waited until yesterday to sack TWO MORE STAFFERS over their illegal behavior regarding sensitive data?

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. He's prudent to avoid wrestling pigs in their preferred mudhole. n/t

[brooklynite]

8. "There is no doubt in my mind that the Clinton campaign stole Sanders and O’Malley’s data"

...and I have no evidence to prove it.

[TheProgressive]

9. Who owns and provides the data and info?

That's right Mr. brooklynite - the DNC who is in bed with Clinton.

Do you question that fact?

[upaloopa]

11. You can have your own opinions but not your

own facts.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. T or F: the individual responsible for "data firewalling" decisions was a former HRC employee.

So he screwed up, twice, in a way that benefitted her opponent and only her opponent?

Implausible.

[Dem2]

15. You're just making it up - guilt by association?

Biased analysis like this has no value and is insulting to our intelligence.

[Chitown Kev]

14. Conspiracy theories abound, I see

You know, Clinton has not performed badly in the debates at all, I don't think that the number of debates has anything to do with anything...

This type of stuff does not help with Sanders getting undecided voters (like myself, who feels kind of indifferent about the primaries at the point) and current supporters of Clinton.

I don't understand it.

[TheProgressive]

18. This analysis should make you think about what really happened...

And I disagree with the debates. Less debates helps Clinton - More debates helps the American people.

[Chitown Kev]

20. More of Bernie's shouting helps the American people?

OK...

Personally, I'm very very very tired of super-long election cycles. The fewer debates, the better, I've discerned the similarities and differences between Sanders and Clinton pretty well already...perhaps more of a topic focus would help and seeing the reactions to events as they happen in real time helps (and Bernie has NOT come off well on that score)

[TheProgressive]

21. Right. the last thing a democracy wants is for the voters to be informed...

And, shouting? That sounds like a clinton talking point...

[Chitown Kev]

25. I'm speaking about myself

6 debates should do it. I think the timing of the debates is suspect, to say to the least, but what more do I need to know about Bernie's and Hillary's and Martin's positions at this point?

Between the debates, the websites, the examination of their records, and how they think on their feet, I know what I need to know...I'm kind of "meh" about much of it, at this point.

[highprincipleswork]

37. The timing of the debates is suspect, the amount may satisfy you but clearly not Sanders or O'Malley

Listen, in the end we should all be going for party unity, no matter how hard that seems these days.

Sanders and O'Malley and their supporters (I am one) think the handling of the debates is weird, suspicious, rigged, counter-productive, not in the best interests of the party, etc. More debates at reasonable times helps inform the public as to what our choices are here. So they can make up their own mind, form their own opinion, through a lot of exposure not a little, and not from what they simply hear from the mass media or other hearsay. Without proper broad exposure for the other candidates, we might as well just nominate Hillary and be done with it. That is not the proper way to ensure we have either the best choice or the most democratic choice.

Furthermore, the debates bring our candidates to the general public, people even outside the party. The Republican debates have drawn huge audiences, the Democratic not so much. And the last one drew the least of all.

People who are more informed, like you, can obviously make up their minds sooner, and so may not wish to watch if and when they are more debates.

Finally, in the interest of party unity, DWS, Hillary Clinton and all should agree to more debates for the good it will do the party and their campaign. She is doing well in them anyway, and this way they can help get rid of these accusations of impropriety and help restore any Democratic support for the DNC and all other Democratic candidates and institutions.

[Chitown Kev]

38. But...

So they can make up their own mind, form their own opinion, through a lot of exposure not a little, and not from what they simply hear from the mass media or other hearsay. Without proper broad exposure for the other candidates, we might as well just nominate Hillary and be done with it.

But maybe the voters have had enough "proper broad exposure"...is there any polling that indicates otherwise?

Define "proper broad exposure". Hell, if DWS had decided on 30 debates, people (including myself) would probably be fed up about there being to many debates.

I think the woman is an incompetent politician performing a horrific job, personally...but good candidates (and I don't think that there are enough candidates) can overcome those flaws in the process.

[highprincipleswork]

39. Suit yourself. It still remains a bad strategy, that is if you want party unity.

There are a lot of people who consider themselves Progressive who are supporting Bernie Sanders and don't trust Hillary, DWS, DNC, or the party at large to listen to them or take care of their needs or concerns.

Especially since Hillary has such a polling lead, since she is doing well at debates, and for the sake of resolving possible charges of collusion, why not have more debates? Those who don't want to watch don't have to and won't. And there will be an opportunity created for more people to tune it.

Why not? What's so hard or damaging about it?

It would truly help to soothe the feelings of those who think the relationship is too close and unfair between DWS, DNC, and Hillary.

I swear, the convention, the general election, all that will go a lot smoother if Hillary wins if they would just work out that debate detail to some satisfaction from Sanders and O'Malley.

[Chitown Kev]

42. No it won't

not from the behavior that I've seen here.

Now, what you can do is to win the primaries that need to be won and there will be more debates.

[uponit7771]

22. The second the SBS staff saw a result set with data that they shouldn't be seeing then they stop and

... report.

That's not what happened, four of them continued to do searches on this data for 40 mins...

That's more than just viewing something to see whats wrong.

The DNC and Hillary and everyone else is not at fault, an open door isn't an invitation to come in

[TheProgressive]

23. The first time in October, the staffer reported the breach.

The second time, the staffer and other staff continued the searches.

I question the staffer's motivation, i.e was he bribed?

[uponit7771]

24. unnn...I doubt 4 of them were bribed to continue to view data they shouldn't be seeing.

... should know better or filter out the data that shouldn't be seen in the other queries.

[emulatorloo]

28. Per Jeff Weaver, a vendor called him in October. Per Josh, it was a different database, not VAN

Of course Josh was not bribed. Seems like a good guy, just made a poor judgement call. Which resulted in his firing by Bernie, and two of his employees suspended by Bernie last night.

[TheProgressive]

30. Can you provide a link for me...

I would like to read this...thanks..

[emulatorloo]

32. Both were said in interviews on MSNBC I saw live, link to JU's phone interview

I don't know how I could find the one for Jeff Weaver because he did multiple ones.

However Josh Uretsky only did one, so I did find the phone interview w Josh. Will have to dig around a bit, but should be able to find it in a little bit. Will come back and edit in a link.

ON EDIT: Here's a link to Josh's phone interview w Steve Kornaki:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/josh-uretsky-clinton-data-breach

[Agschmid]

26. Unrec.

More conspiracy theory swill.

[TheProgressive]

27. How do you know? Clinton's DNC owns the data and releases what they want to release...

[mythology]

31. You do realize that the Sanders campaign has done that with this issue right?

At first it was a single low level staffer. It turns out it was four staffers at least two of which were high level staffers.

At first they had notified the vendor back in October, but it turns out that isn't the case.

It was accidental and nothing was saved. Except they did many very specific and useful searches that they did save.

[Agschmid]

35. At this point you are just making stuff up.

Let's stop with this conspiracy theory.

[TheProgressive]

36. Again, where is all the data stored? Who informed the media as to what happened?

It is the DNC. Is there *any* question about these facts?

[Uncle Joe]

33. And it's not just who has the most campaign dollars which influences the corporate media's slanted

coverage.

They know which candidate is most keen on overturning Citizens United aka; the mother-load of campaign dollars rolling in from all corners of the earth buying our elections and in turn a corporate supremacist supporting government and which candidate thinks that kind of corruptive and destructive policy is perfectly OK for our nation or will only give lip service in opposition.

Thanks for the thread, TheProgressive.

[TheProgressive]

34. Good points Uncle Joe...

I forgot about Citizens United and that money too. Also Senator has
openly criticized the news media as well.

[Betty Karlson]

40. Best analysis I've read so far. eom

[TheProgressive]

43. Thanks for that...!

[AgingAmerican]

44. Bottom line is DWS/Hillary opened up this can of worms and DWS is now in legal trouble

They are trying to minimize it now, to make it go away. DWS didn't think that maybe this stunt would backfire on her. Too late now, can't get the genie back into the bottle.

[Blue_Adept]

45. You realize that the problem in October was with a whole other system?

And not this one that NGP VAN works with?

The two are NOT related. People keep conflating what happened in October as being with the same exact thing as what happened this past week.

If that's the foundation, then the whole thing falls apart.

[TheProgressive]

46. The Sanders staffer who was fired has Zero credibility.

In fact, he could have been part of the plan along.

[Blue_Adept]

47. and what does that have to do with what I said?

[TheProgressive]

48. Everything...

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair,

I think this quote is significant.