2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumVery disappointing: Bernie Sanders repeats falsehoods about data breach.
I really wanted to believe that the whole data breach kerfuffle was over after Saturday's debate, but it appears that it is not. The Sanders campaign continues to press their lawsuit against the DNC, and in extremely disappointing fashion, Bernie Sanders himself went on Meet the Press and repeated false statements about their campaign's actions during this episode. I will refrain from using the term "lie", because I have a feeling he actually believes what he's saying, and I suspect this is because this is what his top advisers are telling him.
In particular, Sanders continues to claim that his campaign was a passive recipient of confidential Clinton campaign data, and that they did not actively seek it out. Here's the relevant transcript from Meet the Press:
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Hold it, hold it, Chuck, Chuck, let me just say this, let's be clear.
CHUCK TODD: Okay.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: As a result of a breach caused by the DNC vendor, not by us, information came into our campaign about the Clinton campaign.
CHUCK TODD: Magically?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We didn't go out and take it.
CHUCK TODD: It magically came there or you had a staff that got it?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes, that's what the--
CHUCK TODD: You believe it accidentally came in? Okay. Go ahead.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: That's not a dispute, there was a breach caused by the incompetence of the DNC vendor. That information came into our campaign. First time it came in, our staff did the right thing. They said, "Hey, we got information from the Clinton campaign, we don't want this," and they went to the DNC.
The second time a staffer or more, we don't know yet, we're doing that investigation, screwed up. And we have fired that person. Point is that the DNC that proposed because of the initial screw up on their part to take away our access for our own information, which significantly hampers our campaign. Fortunately, that has been resolved.
As multiple reports state, this is not true. While the glitch in the NGP VAN software allowed campaigns to access other each other's data, the Sanders campaign staffers still had to take deliberate steps to go access it. They had to issue queries against the newly opened data, and they did, roughly 25 times. They created lists that they stored in folders (which fortunately apparently could not be saved or exported). This was deliberate, purposeful, snooping.
What Sanders said was simply false.
Personal interpretation: I know we are deep in the throes of primary season here, so not only are we supposed to distrust the motives of all the candidates and posters except our own. (As I write this, a post called "Hillary Clinton LIES to America" received 46 upvotes before being hidden.) However, I remain an admirer of both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, and I'm trying to give Sanders the benefit of whatever doubt there is. That's one reason that when the story first broke, and the reports said it was a single low-level staffer, I believed it.
Now, I'm very much hoping that Sanders is being misled by his attack dog advisers, Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine. At this point I'm only speculating, but having watched their press conferences and interviews, both of them seem to have internalized the primary process so far that they're now more self-righteous than Sanders himself. I'm guessing that Sanders himself is far too busy to research the details of NGP VAN himself, and may not be an expert in how databases work. I hope he finds himself better advisers, since these two are not serving him well, and are risking a completely unnecessary split in the Democratic Party.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)and they went to the DNC."
That never happened.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)acquiesced. Remember? That says a lot about the whole story. You guys prefer to ignore this
most important point.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Surprised no one's alerted your post yet.
tecelote
(5,156 posts)"The statement reiterated that during a "brief window" of unspecified duration, a limited amount of unauthorized data was viewable. However, NGP VAN stated that the affected data was not exportable, savable, or actionable"
http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-breach-controversy/
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)So no, a screen grab was not possible. It's actually not to difficult to disable screen capture abilities on a computer.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Ergo, her actual wrongdoing gets a whitewash, and Bernie, citing the actual source of the problem, is called a liar. That is almost Hillariaous
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)it hasn't been updated in days. More information has come out AFTER that was written, none of it benefitting Team Sanders. The title "STEAL THE BERN" is accurate, still, though.
Here's their activity:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/18/merged_document.pdf
Why should anyone believe the Sanders campaign, when they are not telling the truth about a supposed "October breach" of their system?
From NGP VAN, directly:
For clarification, NGP VAN played no part in the October data issue that has been mentioned....Second, there has been independent confirmation that NGP VAN has not received previous notice of a data breach regarding NGP VAN. Josh Uretsky, the former National Data Director for the Sanders campaign confirmed on MSNBC (at 5:47), and also on CNN, regarding the previous incident: “it wasn’t actually within the VAN VoteBuilder system, it was another system.”
Yet the campaign continues to try and pretend it was "all of a piece." That's simply not true. They also try to pretend that the data just kind of fell into their laps. THAT's not true, either--they honed in on vital data in early primary states AND, until the VAN engineers were able to cut them off, they WERE able to swipe data.
Our team removed access to the affected data, and determined that only one campaign took actions that could possibly have led to it retaining data to which it should not have had access.
In short--they cheated.
Last week, several staffers for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign combed through compromised voter files from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. While this news is admittedly not the most alluring of political scandals — just try saying “proprietary software” three times aloud without putting yourself to sleep — it does show how campaigns today are waged. Not on the airwaves, or at swanky fund-raisers, but in the microtargeting of voters, over the phone, in drab campaign offices in swing states across the country....Fast forward to last Wednesday, when the firewall at NGP VAN, the company the D.N.C. has used for more than four electoral cycles, slipped, and at least four of Senator Sanders’s campaign staffers were able to access precious voter information collected by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. This was not run-of-the-mill data; the D.N.C. provides all three presidential campaigns with Democratic voters’ names, phone numbers and addresses. The files that Mr. Sanders’s staffers were able to access and save during the 40-minute security glitch included lists with titles like “HFA Turnout 60-100,” “HFA Support 50-100” and “HFA Support <30” in Iowa.
What sounds like mumbo-jumbo to the average political observer is actually crucial information about the relative persuadability of Democratic voters in key primary states. One Clinton staffer compared the data breach to “the opposing general getting your battle plans.”
“It’s important because campaigns spend millions of dollars, and endless man hours on getting that data,” Vincent Harris, Senator Rand Paul’s chief digital strategist, said in an interview. “The purpose of a campaign is to deliver voter contact, and then turn out voters based on the data received. If Sanders was able to steal or see the data Clinton’s massive campaign had, it would give him a huge advantage to know what voters to target in various capacities.”
Further, this lame attempt to blame the company, as though they are "in cahoots with Hillary," or they drop their firewall routinely, is just false as hell. That "October breach" was NOT about the VAN database, and was NOT reported to VAN, as we have learned, yet the Sanders campaign still tries to obfuscate that issue.
Stu Trevelyan, the chief executive of NGP VAN, defended his company. While he has apologized for the data breach, he said that it was the first time in the company’s 19-year history that it experienced such a security lapse. He also said his company takes its neutrality seriously, and it has a policy barring staff members from taking public roles in primary campaigns.
When "everybody is wrong" save the "poor pitiful cough-victim-cough" who is actually the perpetrator of a crime (theft of data), that narrative doesn't engender sympathy or pity. It comes off like cheaters trying to talk their way out of a bad situation by spinning and obfuscating.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I take that to mean... no data was transferred.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's in VAN's posted statement.
You can take a screen shot without "transferring data" too.
The bottom line is this--the Sanders campaign cheated, and they lied, too. They lied about telling Van about an October breach (it wasn't a VAN database, and that fired idiot finally admitted that) and they lied about "sounding the alarm" about this breach, too. What happened was that VAN personnel saw what they were doing and quickly locked them out (they locked EVERYONE out for a brief period after they saw what was happening). Then they called and said WTF? Then they tried to stonewall VAN while they cleaned up their mess (attempting to delete files) and they failed to tell their boss what happened. Then DWS called Sanders after they continued to refuse to cooperate with the vendor.
Sanders found out that his people were cheating from DWS. That's got to undermine his confidence in them in a big way. Right now, he's blustering, but his heart isn't in it. He's figuring out that his integrity level is far and away above that of the cheaters he has working for him. I'm sure it's making him both angry and sad.
This independent audit is going to make his crew look sleazy as hell.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Some mysterious "third party" that has yet to be disclosed, found out about the existence of the breach 45 minutes after it happened. Sander's IT guy had not had a chance to report the occurrence.
I guess "NGP VAN stated that the affected data was not exportable, savable, or actionable" means nothing to you.
When a file is not actionable, it means you can't interact with it... which includes using screen capture. It means that the print-screen button/option has been disabled. Or is it your claim that NGP VAN is more incompetent than previously known?
It's worth pointing out that NGP VAN's failure to maintain a firewall should have absolutely no effect on maintaining rules that keep the print screen button/option from working.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And they had forty five minutes of free-for-alling before NGP VAN locked them out.
And you "know" the print screen command didn't work? Really? I don't think you do.
But by taking responsibility at the debate, Sanders essentially conceded that wasn’t true — and one aide to the Vermont senator suggested Uretsky’s actions were less a concerted hacking scheme than a chance to sneak a look at “some data porn.”
Clinton’s staffers and volunteers in Iowa are especially nervous about the long-term impact of the breach — winning the caucus is entirely dependent on voter mobilization, and a few thousand votes either way can swing the benchmark contest in unpredictable ways.
Pat Rynard, a longtime Democratic organizer in the state who worked on Clinton’s third-place effort in 2008, said the Sanders team didn’t need to download a lot of data — or perform a detailed analysis — to derive a benefit.
“Just because they didn’t export the file doesn’t mean they didn’t get anything out of it; knowing how many people are in the turnout world could be important, for example,” he said. “That could change a little bit of how you approach your final caucus strategy. In particular, it gives the Sanders campaign a sense of how their organization stacks up against the Clinton operation, which could let them adjust expectations."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-data-breach-217019#ixzz3v6Te7NYr
The NGP VAN statement said the Sanders campaign could not see actual lists of voters. All that would be visible would be tallies of people. The sole exception was "a one page-style report containing summary data on a list was saved out of VoteBuilder by one Sanders user."
That would correspond to the final item on the log above where at 11:41 a.m. there is a notation for "Hits counts and cross tabs 4 times."
It is unclear if that page was printed out or copied. But it was created because a Sanders staff member took specific actions.
Two people who know the NGP VAN system told PolitiFact that even the most minimal data gleaned from the Clinton campaign would have been valuable.
David Atkins, a campaign consultant and county official in the California Democratic Party, told us that the information would give the Sanders campaign some idea of how the Clinton campaign was targeting voters. And it would offer "a sort of polling snapshot to see how well or poorly she was doing in certain states."..."At the very least, topline numbers would provide a ballpark overview of the numbers the opposing campaign was working with in these states," Kreiss said.
Not only could that open a window into the state of the race, it could help the Sanders campaign’s measure the accuracy of its own information.
Atkins cautioned that to this day, only a handful of people actually know what took place. But the activity logs don’t help the Sanders campaign’s position.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/bernie-s/Sanders-take-Clinton-voter-data/
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I note than none of your sources say anything about checking the hillary campaign's databases. When NGP VAN failed to maintain their firewall and the data was pushed down to the hillary and Bernie camps, they both had access to the information available.
That'll get covered in the investigation though. Hold onto your hat!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's time to let go.
MADem
(135,425 posts)As a result of this analysis, NGP VAN found that campaign staff on the Sanders campaign, including the campaign’s national data director, had accessed proprietary information about which voters were being targeted by the Clinton campaign — and in doing so violated their agreements with the DNC.
These staffers then saved this information in their personal folders on the system, and over the course of the next day, we learned that at least one staffer appeared to have generated reports and exported them from the system.
None of this is in dispute. It’s fully documented in the system logs. And these details reveal nothing less than a serious violation of the agreements governing the use of this data. Underscoring that fact is the point that the Sanders campaign has fired their national data director and indicated further disciplinary actions may be taken pending the results of their own investigation.
When we understood what initially happened, we asked the Sanders campaign to tell us who exactly accessed Hillary for America information, share their understanding of what data was accessed, describe what was done with that information, and detail how the campaign intended to discipline the staffers involved.
On Thursday, further NGP VAN analysis revealed that it was very likely that a user had taken data out of the system during the breach. Upon learning that, the DNC had to suspend the Sanders campaign’s access to the voter file to ensure the integrity of the system. This action was not taken to punish the Sanders campaign — it was necessary to ensure that the Sanders campaign took appropriate steps to resolve the issue and wasn’t unfairly using another campaign’s data. This temporary suspension was well within the DNC’s authority. Moreover, the DNC was left with little choice in the matter when the Sanders campaign declined to respond in a timely manner to the requests for assistance with an investigation.
On Thursday, the Sanders campaign did move to fire its national data director. But we still weren’t provided the information we needed from the campaign until late in the evening on Friday. Once they complied with our prior request and provided documentation that we were then able to review, we immediately restored the Sanders campaign’s access to the voter file — as was always our intention and as we had advised well before they sued the Committee.
And the information obtained so far shows that the DNC’s concern to have a full, thorough inquiry was fully justified: As confirmed by the Sanders campaign in the account given the DNC Friday evening, one of the employees of the campaign involved in the misconduct tried to delete the notes they made recording their accessing of Clinton campaign data to hide his activities.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)At the end of the day, the Sanders team is going to look pretty skeevy. More people will probably need to go.
Duval
(4,280 posts)
Sancho
(9,205 posts)Yes, the staffers stole Hillary's information - and they did it on purpose.
They also refused to allow an investigation for at least two days - likely so they could cover up what they did and anything else they were doing besides this one incident.
tecelote
(5,156 posts)But they didn't. They called the media. It was a classic political hit job.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)If the Sanders campaign had agreed to an investigation, they never would have been cut off or exposed to the public. It was only a scandal because they refused to allow an audit for two days. The cut off was to force the staff to allow investigators. The staff apparently did not tell Bernie immediately either.
MADem
(135,425 posts)breached in October (it was NOT) and that they sounded the alarm (they did NOT).
Sanders learned about this from DWS--not from his own people. THAT, right there, tells us all we need to know about the transparency of his staff--the fact that they tried to tamp this down and NOT TELL THE BOSS should be a huge red flag.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tecelote
(5,156 posts)I was under the impression that they saw records of contributors.
They would need thousands to be of benefit. Top donors are already publically available.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)However, the access logs do show that Sanders staff pulled not one but multiple lists—not searches, but lists—a fact that shows intent to export and use. And the lists were highly sensitive material. News reports have indicated that the data was “sent to personal folders” of the campaign staffers—but those refer to personal folders within NGPVAN, which are near useless without the ability to export the data locally.
Even without being able to export, however, merely seeing the topline numbers of, say, how many voters the Clinton campaign had managed to bank as “strong yes” votes would be a valuable piece of oppo. While it’s not the dramatic problem that a data export would have been, it’s undeniable that the Sanders campaign gleaned valuable information from the toplines alone. It’s also quite clear that most of the statements the Sanders campaign made as the story progressed—from the claim that the staffers only did it to prove the security breach, or that only one staffer had access—were simply not true. It’s just not clear at this point whether the campaign’s comms people knew the truth and lied, or whether they were not being told the whole truth by the people on the data team who were still making up stories and excuses to cover their tracks. I suspect the latter.
In this context, it made sense for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to suspend the Sanders campaign’s access to the data until it could determine the extent of the damage, and the degree to which the Clinton campaign’s private data had been compromised. As it turns out the ethical breach by Sanders operatives was massive, but the actual data discovery was limited. So it made sense and was fairly obvious that the DNC would quickly end up giving the campaign back its NGPVAN access—particularly since failing to do so would be a death sentence for the campaign and a gigantic black eye to the party.
tecelote
(5,156 posts)Certainly is the Kettle/Pot thing isn't it.
Clinton's campaign engaged in similar activity during the 2008 campaign.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tecelote
(5,156 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)He's a better man than some of his supporters. AND some of his staffers, too.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...well, he's certainly a better man than most of the Clinton supporters here, who still want to make this into something other than what it was.
I understand it must be aggravating. After all, Sanders' people did do something wrong by looking at the data. We know this because he apologized -- well, that, and he fired someone immediately. Yet here we are a few days later, and the ones with egg on their face are DWS and DNC. How, oh how can that be???
Here's how, and this is the object lesson: when something has been dropped in your lap -- like this screwup by the Sanders campaign was dropped in DWS' lap -- no matter how much eager you are to use it as a weapon and to go running to the press, best make sure you have your ducks in a row. L'il Miss Debbie Blink-Blink did not do that. She breached the contract, got called on it, and caved. Note, since she was so willing to brazenly break the rules, she lost the moral high ground when lecturing others about breaking rules. Bernie fired his staffer right away, and later suspended two others. Debbie did not release access to their data until forced to do so by an impending court date. Nor did she apologize for pulling access to the data.
Oh boo hoo, l'il Debbie. My heart bleeds. Not.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Clinton supporters.
As your snarky "li'l Debbie" comment demonstrates.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)L'il Debbie lost the first confrontation. Badly.
Go ahead, Debbie. Please proceed.
MADem
(135,425 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...under the circumstances. Nothing to do with throwing anyone under the bus. A wrong was committed, the campaign owned up to it and fired those involved. Not seeing your problem here?
You seem to think it has something to do with DWS's stunt of pulling access to the campaign data. It does not. It is Debbie's stunt that has damaged her and the DNC. It's a staggering level of hubris mixed with incompetence.
MADem
(135,425 posts)DWS's "stunt" (don't dance too close to the fire with that term, now) was nothing of the sort. The Sanders campaign refused to provide requested affadavits, and they stonewalled DNC, so the cut-off was a way of persuading them to cough up the material they were obligated to provide in order for the audit to proceed.
You know what's "shenanigans?" When a bunch of data crunchers get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and NO ONE tells the Big Boss.
Sanders had to LEARN about this issue from Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Gothmog
(179,847 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)to bring in another point, why would she do that if she was trying to hinder Bernie in some way as is alleged often in GDP
Cal33
(7,018 posts)open. She probably has a lot to hide.
George II
(67,782 posts)....compromise they agreed to in order to stop the lawsuit and proceed with the investigation.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)that says more
Cal33
(7,018 posts)movement among Democrats to demand that she resign. Her job requires that she remain
neutral in her treatment of the Democratic Presidential candidates, but she is openly flaunting
her preference for Hillary Clinton. If she is incapable of impartiality, this job is not for her. She has to go.
http://www.examiner.com/article/petition-to-remove-debbie-wasserman-schultz-as-dnc-chair-grows-at-rapid-rate
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I'm not sure that's the same vendor, as he's implying, but that seems like a less important point.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)the Sanders campaign never contacted them in October or any other time.If they did contact them or the DNC in October,they should produce the proof. This constant bashing of the Democratic party by the Sanders campaign isn't going to play out the way they must imagine it will.
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)And people around these parts continue to conflate the two events as the same thing; the only area it's the same is that it's all under the DNC roof.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)
Nitram
(27,741 posts)And the facts don't support the Sanders narrative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/18/the-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-data-fight-explained/
Duval
(4,280 posts)Nitram
(27,741 posts)Do you question the article I linked to?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/18/the-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-data-fight-explained/
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)The DNC is gonna get a black eye over this one... actually, they already have...but it's gonna get worse.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)Are we to take the word of Sanders staffers that they were "only trying to establish the vulnerability of their own data?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/18/the-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-data-fight-explained/
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)and here:
http://www.databreachtoday.com/interviews/exploring-ethics-behind-dnc-breach-i-3022
When a breach, error, glitch etc. is detected, its standard that whoever came across it gather as much information about it as they can so as to verify the issue, and to be able to show the breadth of the issue.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)If it is "stanadard practice" then why did Bernie fire those staffers?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 22, 2015, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)
says it's standard practice, I'm gonna listen to him over you. I would mention my personal experience in IT, but you'd just discount it since I'm a Bernie supporter. As to your question of why the firing happened, this already been answered. You'll choose to disbelieve it anyway.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)posts. 
Let's have a full investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)It just means I take you about as seriously as you take me.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)And all I did was ask about standard procedures for a database shared by different customers who are in competition. I'm sorry if you felt I ignored your Prof. didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I wasn't sure your Prof was directly addressing the same situation. But no problem, no need to take me seriously. You've got your mind made up already I can tell.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)You don't matter enough to me to be able to hurt my feelings... this is purely a case of answering your challenge on standard IT practice as it pertains to the data breach . But if you're not willing to at least look at the answer, please don't waste my time asking the question.
Happy holidays.
Duval
(4,280 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)The reason they weren't aware of the October problem is because it was with a different vendor's software, not theirs.
But it's a piece of the story that is so papered over with outrage and lack of understanding (see the firewall phrase problem) that it's just lost.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And on the Clinton Gore campaign. The server admin for the vendor worked for Hillary, previously. The shit runs deep.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)The Clinton White House was 15 years ago.
NGP VAN is a Democratic organization. Of course some people will have connections to other Democratic candidates. NGP VAN was a big player in the Obama campaigns too. Is he in on it? He appointed Wasserman Schulz after all.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
"He was a veteran of the 1992 Clinton-Gore War Room, providing research, analysis, and whip counts to the Clinton Administration as a member of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Trevelyan
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I'm questioning the idea that because he was, that has any bearing whatsoever on anything happening today.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)He is a Clinton loyalist. I smell a rat. You have just lost the argument. Have a nice day.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... are still loyal to her today... well, that speaks volumes about what a great person she is, right?
Nitram
(27,741 posts)Except that Sander's staffers had to query it , save it to folders and then share the links with other staffers. diabolical trap, that. and boy did the sanders campaign take the bait!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The firewall came down. Any query would return data from both campaigns. Queries done by EITHER campaign would return data from the other. Only Sanders campaign came forward and said there was a problem.
Neither the Clinton campaign or the DNC are saying any data was taken. Hillary's supporters made that up.
I smell a rat.
Nitram
(27,741 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Sanders is only being accused by Clinton internet partisans. Not by the Clinton campaign or the DNC, so you guys are wasting your breath.
Beartracks
(14,591 posts)... both Sanders data AND Clinton data. Probably O'Malley's, too.
That's how you can tell there is a problem.
How, then, do you determine the extent of the problem?
You run more queries. Because whatever Hillary data is exposed, the same data is exposed for Sanders.
And this is being characterized as a query specifically for Hillary's data, but EVERY query was pulling EVERY candidate's data.
Anyhow, thats my take. I think this kerfuffle has as much relevance as, say, an email "scandal" in terms of how much it demonstrates fitness for the office of President.
===============
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...they did not claim to have contacted the vendor. The DNC said they would take care of the problem (according to the Sanders campaign). If this is true, and if the vendor never heard about the issue, that would seem to be a case of negligence on the part of the DNC, and this should be part of any investigation.
Duval
(4,280 posts)is important that Bernie told the DNC about it. He never heard back and thought it was taken care of. He fired the persons responsible, and apologized to Hillary.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...although it may have been a different software system.
I have read nothing to indicate there was another vendor involved at that time.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)On Wednesday morning, there was a release of VAN code. Unfortunately, it contained a bug. For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system. So for voters that a user already had access to, that user was able to search by and view (but not export or save or act on) some attributes that came from another campaign.
Stop this hysterical nonsense about Bernie's campaign having grabbed the information. NPG Van released code that had a bug and provided data that contained some Hillary notations to the Sanders campaign. The fault is that of the NPG Van vendor, not of the Sanders campaign.
Nothing was stolen -- according to NPG Van.
This is how databases work.
Duval
(4,280 posts)beating me to it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)On Wednesday morning, there was a release of VAN code. Unfortunately, it contained a bug. For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system. So for voters that a user already had access to, that user was able to search by and view (but not export or save or act on) some attributes that came from another campaign.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)that they took their discovery of the breach to the DNC? They didn't,the DNC notified them.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)October to the DNC. That's what I think it was Weaver said in a video.
Watch Weaver's statement.
The report was in October but it was not about the NPG Van database that is now in question. That is my understanding.
Duval
(4,280 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...yeah, here we go:
http://time.com/4155185/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-data/
Your lies are not helping.
George II
(67,782 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I apologize.
George II
(67,782 posts)....they were relying in part with what the Sanders campaign said.
Sometime on Saturday night, maybe early Sunday morning, the actual logs were posted in pdf format. I downloaded that 4-page document but was too hasty and didn't think to save the actual link. I wish I had.
George II
(67,782 posts).....but one can get an idea of the content of the logs. After the link, I'm posting, although long, a text version of the complete log that was found somewhere else in pdf format. If I re-find where I got that, I'll certainly post it. Earliest time was 10:40, latest time was 12:24.
Crooks and liars link:
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/reports-sanders-staffers-downloaded-key
The complete log:
Time State Action
10:59:00 HI Created by Juretsky
11:02:12 AL Logs into AL from Sanders HQ Office IP
11:15:00 AL Searched: HFA Primary Prioritization 7-10
11:25:40 AZ Logs into AZ
Time State Action
10:46:00 TX Creates folder “Targets” and saved HFA Primary Priority 9-10 as search “Not Sanders 9”
10:47:00 TX Searched: HFA Primary Priority 0-1
10:48:00 TX Saved list "Not Hilary" into folder "Targets"
10:49:00 TX Searched: HFA Primary Priority 9-10
10:49:00 TX Saved list "Not Sanders" into folder "Targets"
10:52:07 NH Logs into NH
10:56:00 NH Searched: 2016:HFA Combined Persuasion 80-100
10:57:00 NH Created folder "Ranged Targets" and saved list "Persuasion 80-100"
10:57:45 HI Logs into HI
11:01:00 HI Creates user csmith_bernie
11:07:00 HI Creates user csanchez_bernie
11:09:48 NH Logs into NH
11:13:00 NH Searched: HFA Turnout 60-100
11:13:00 NH Saved list "Turout 60+" into folder "Ranged Targets"
11:15:00 NH Searched: HFA Turnout 40-60
11:17:00 NH Saved list "Turnout 40-60" into folder "Ranged Targets"
11:22:00 NH Searched: HFA Support 50-100
11:23:00 NH Saved list "Not Sanders" into folder "Ranged Targets"
11:23:35 OH Logs into OH
11:26:00 OH Grants full VF access to javiergNV
11:27:27 NH Logs into NH
11:27:38 NH Attempts to run a search. At this point cannot access page sections.
11:41:17 NH Hits counts and cross tabs 4 times
Time State Action
10:40:00 SC Searched: HFA Support 70+
10:41:00 SC Created folder "Data Team"
10:41:00 SC Saved list "Support 70+" into "Data Team" folder
10:41:00 SC Searched: HFA Support <30
10:42:00 SC Saved list “Support -30” into “Data Team” folder
10:43:00 SC Searched: HFA Turnout 70+
10:44:00 SC Saved list “Turnout 70+” into “Data Team” folder
10:45:00 SC Searched: HFA Turnout <30
10:45:00 SC Saved list "Turnout -30" into "Data Team" folder
10:46:00 SC Searched: HFA Turnout 30-70
10:46:00 SC Saved list "Turnout 30-69.99" into "Data Team" folder
10:47:00 SC Searched: HFA Support 30-70
10:47:00 SC Saved list "Support 30.01-69.99" into "Data Team" folder
10:47:56 SC Switched to Iowa voter file
10:49:00 IA Searched: HFA Support 70+
10:49:00 IA Created folder "Data Team"
10:49:00 IA Saved list "Support 70+" into "Data Team" folder
10:52:00 IA Searched: HFA Support <30
10:53:00 IA Saved list “Support -30” into “Data Team” folder
10:53:00 IA Created folders "HFA" and "HFA -30" but didn't put anything into them
10:54:00 IA Searched: HFA Support 30-70
10:55:00 IA Saved list "Support 30.01-69.99" into "Data Team" folder
Apparent session timeout
11:25:35 IA Suppressed folder "HFA" and "HFA -30"
11:27 SC Logged in, clicked into folders and saved lists and searches. Didn't generate anything.
11:31:00 NV Logged into NV, ran a search on Sanders committee SQs, exported list
11:37:41 IA Logged into IA
11:41:00 IA Granted access to users UretskyJ and anikseresht to folder "Data Team"
11:54:00 IA Granted access to users HawleyBrett and talani to folder "Data Team"
12:14:55 IA Logged in to IA but did not touch those folders or lists
Time State Action
10:43 CO Logs into CO
10:43 CO Access Create A List - takes no action
10:45 AL Logs into AL
10:49 AL Searched: HFA Primary Priority>=9
10:50 AL Searched: HFA Primary Priority>=9
10:51 AL Creates Folder “Data Team” and Saves list “Prioritization9+” into it
10:51 AL Shares “Data Team Folder with users rdrapkinNH and UretskyJ
10:54 AR Logs into AR
10:55 CO Logs into CO
10:59 CO Searched: HFA Primary Priority >=9
10:59 CO Creates Folder “Data Team” and Saves list “Prioritization9+” into it
10:59 AR Logs into AR
11:02 AR Searched: HFA Primary Priority >=9
11:02 AR Creates Folder “Data Team” and Saves list “Prioritization9+” into it
11:02 FL Logs into FL
11:08 FL Searched: HFA Primary Priority >=9
11:08 FL Creates Folder “Data Team” and Saves list “Prioritization9+” into it
11:10 VA Logs into VA
11:12 VA Searched: HFA Primary Priority >=9
11:12 VA Creates Folder “Data Team” and Saves list “Prioritization9+” into it
11:12 UT Logs into UT
11:15 UT Searched: HFA Primary Priority >=8
11:16 UT Creates Folder “Data Team” and Saves list “Prioritization8+” into it
11:19 TX Logs into TX
11:19 TX Searched: HFA Primary Priority >=8
11:19 TX Creates Folder “Data Team” and Saves list “Prioritization8+” into it
11:19 TN Logs into TN
11:21 TN Searched: HFA Primary Priority >=8
11:21 TN Creates Folder “Data Team” and Saves list “Prioritization8+” into it
11:22 OK Logs into OK
11:22 OK Access Create A List - takes no action
11:24 OH Logs into OH
11:25 OH Access Create A List - takes no action
11:26 TX Logs into TX
11:26 TX Access Create A List - takes no action
11:51 VA Logs into VA
11:51 VA Runs an innocuous BU (call vendor data from outside source)
12:21 TX Logs into TX
12:22 TX Access Create A List - takes no action
12:24 TX Runs an innocuous BU (call vendor data from outside source)
Perogie
(687 posts)and only you got the results?
You have no facts. Only what others have said. So until the actual facts are known maybe you should reserve judgement.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Per NGP Van:
On Wednesday morning, there was a release of VAN code. Unfortunately, it contained a bug. For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system. So for voters that a user already had access to, that user was able to search by and view (but not export or save or act on) some attributes that came from another campaign.
The breach was brief:
FROM JD PRIESTLY POST ON NGP VAN STATEMENT: Again, this bug was a brief isolated issue, and we are not aware of any previous reports of such data being inappropriately available. We look forward to supporting all our Democratic clients, and in particular apologize to the DNC, Clinton and Sanders campaigns for our bug Wednesday.
What information was exported?
First, a one page-style report containing summary data on a list was saved out of VoteBuilder by one Sanders user. This is what some people have referred to as the “export” from VoteBuilder. As noted below, users were unable to export lists of people.
NGP Van states that it was not involved in the earlier breach that Sanders' campaign reported.
Sanders Team reported it to The DNC!
I am not associated with NGP Van in any way, but I think it is only fair to base our discussion in this matter on NGP Van's information and not on the conjecture and hysterical assumptions of the press, the electronic media or the Hillary supporters.
Rose Siding
(32,629 posts)None of that makes sense if what he says there is true. Can't have it both ways.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... out of an abundance of caution. I'm trying hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Rose Siding
(32,629 posts)-if avoiding the appearance of impropriety was the objective.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)At this point I'm only speculating, and trying to be fair, because I hate primary season.
Rose Siding
(32,629 posts)They've both kind of gotten out in the weeds given the difference in generational understanding (not to be too broad- just guessin') of tech issues.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)In this case, Bernie expects his people to be above reproach in both actions and appearance. Had Bernie asked them to resign, people would have simply jumped on that and said Bernie showed a lack of leadership in not firing them. It would have been more of the: Not good enough Bernie! meme.
He made the right choice.
He acted based on perceived impropriety.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)or have a staffer or volunteer do it either. The suit is for the actions of the DNC against Bernie which violated their own contract with vendors in order to hurt him. Score a $million dollars in contributions for Bernie and a million plus in bad press for the DNC and Hillary. We win by more every time you let Bernie people talk about this. Thank you for the opportunity to point out what is going on.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... is I think Sanders himself would feel less aggrieved if he realized more clearly what his rogue staffers did. I'm not sure what his mental model of NGP VAN is, but he seems to think that it was like mail delivered to the wrong house, and his staffers opened the envelopes anyway. It was really much worse than that.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)back under his control OR seem to want to. This tells me he's a horrible leader.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)carla
(553 posts)NPG VAN has cleared them of wrong doing and your candidate's campaign has been sullied in the process. Nice try but no one who is honest will believe your line of argument because it is false. Good try though. Bernie Sanders, 2016. For an honest American president and not a shill for the 1%.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Sanders is a horrible, horrible and weak leader. He can't control four people on his staff?? I mean, if illegally accessing Hillary Clinton campaign data by his staff members was done without his knowledge, which is the only way he can claim innocence.
So if that's true, if he had no knowledge that his staff were accessing proprietary data and trying to save it into their own accounts, why on God's green Earth do Sanders supporters believe he can control a divided Congress and country??
Bernie Sanders, 2016. For an honest American president and not a shill for the 1%.
Well, that would depend. Do you believe the heads of the NRA are part of the 1%? Or gun manufacturers? Or CEOs at Sandia and Lockheed Martin that gets 82% of its revenue from American taxpayers and is the biggest wasteful spending program under the MiC? Oh, and if you believe that the MiC is part of the 1%. Because if you don't, then no prob. Bernie's not shilling for the 1%.
Full disclosure: All the above are part of the 1%. But I know you know that.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...they shouldn't be there and then stayed in the apartment for more than 40 mins.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It's Magic......
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Right now there is some conflicting information, and let's face it none of us know the whole story. It is very possible that Bernie is right and the reports from the DNC are wrong.
Let's have a full independent investigation starting from day one to get to the bottom of this.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I want to know.
I think all of us should know what has been going on with that software since day one.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Sunlight is good.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Cheviteau
(383 posts)But you can bet that DWS will do all within her power to prevent that from happening. I can vote for either of them at this point...I just want a fair fight. Not one that DWS has tilted. Full disclosure: I can not stand that damn woman (DWS). She is absolutely the worst thing that has happened to the Democrats in my time here (76 yrs). If she didn't set this up, I'd be surprised.
tecelote
(5,156 posts)Server logs can be manipulated so the discovery process has to include emails which will have copies and a trail to all three campaigns computers. Much harder to hide.
The email trail will tell the truth.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...even with the searches that have been documented.
In the October incident, the Sanders campaign says that indeed, data from Clinton's campaign ended up on their system without them doing anything to receive such data. They noticed and immediately sequestered the data into a password-protected file and notified the DNC, who said the problem would be taken care of. That was the end of it for that incident.
In the recent incident, the Sanders campaign has said their IT people "noticed" that Clinton data was available -- then proceeded to do the wrong thing, i.e. make specific queries related to Clinton's data. There is some question as to whether this was done to document the bug or really to see the data, but that doesn't really matter -- they were wrong to do what they did. One has been fired and two have been suspended.
But how did they notice the latest breach in the first place? From everything I have read about this incident, it sounds like the initial data did indeed just show up on their system. I can see how that could happen, too. Just make a generic query that does not qualify the result in a way that will only return your own records. If the system is working properly, you will always get only your own records due to permission constraints. If permission constraints have been removed, then a generic query could very well return data from other campaigns as well as your own, even without you seeking it out. I think that is what happened in the first place, precipitating the wrong reaction from his IT group.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)It sounds reasonable. Though I've seen reports that the October incident was with a different system, not NGP VAN.
However, I still wouldn't characterize it as being a passive recipient of data, though, even if the initial discovery was accidental. Even if "information came into his campaign" the first time this way, the next 24 times they went and got it.
But thank you for your serious and informed post.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but here's the thing: the reporting on technical issues is always problematic, as it can be hard to get the facts right while also covering the human and (in this case) political aspects. So that being the case, the media has used words like "firewall" (which almost certainly does not apply) and "hacking" (which most certainly does not apply). So Sanders is left with the need to stress that no one on his team did any hacking, or actively seeking Clinton data in the first place.
So I see why he stresses the passive part of it, and I also see why you do not agree with it. Me, I wish people could always be scrupulously accurate about such things -- but most people are not techies, and we all have our biases, so that is undoubtedly a vain hope.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Handling it 'in house' due to the possibility of damage to the Democratic Party. Makes me wonder what she was thinking. Why would she do that? I would think an investigation would clear up any questions about who DWS works for and why these data breaches happened and how. Where data from all side went or didn't go etc.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)it into something it is not. I get he's an inspiration to a lot of folks and justifiably so, but on this he is really wrong and it's embarrassing.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...is how the DWS / DNC's overheated reaction boomeranged, leaving them as the ones with egg on their face.
I think it's pretty damned funny myself. If Debbie Blink-Blink had not gone in for (what she thought would be) the kill, this would never have been a public issue at all.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)security. That doesn't help Democrats at all, least of all the campaign that took the data and then tried to blame it on someone else.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I don't give a rat's ass what "white wingers" (I know you meant right wingers) think. They aren't voting for our candidate anyway.
Furthermore, the only people who ended up looking bad are DWS and the DNC -- I don't think it made the Clinton campaign look bad as they, apparently, had nothing to do with this incident.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...if DWS had not thought she had her big "gotcha" moment against the Sanders campaign.
Sanders handled it appropriately from the beginning, firing the highest level staffer involved immediately and later suspending (firing? what's the difference?) two other staffers.
The smart move for DWS after that, would have been to get the two camps in the same room and hash out how the Sanders team could ensure to the Clinton team that they no longer retained any of the data.
Instead she cut off access to their own data from the Sanders campaign, against the clear terms of their contract. She then ran to the press to say loud and clear and publicly (and very blinkily) that the Sanders campaign had stolen data. Blink Inappropriate Blink Stole Blinkety Blink Blink Blink...
But the Sanders team immediately filed suit to regain access to their data. The DNC caved and gave the Sanders team access again, conveniently right before they would have had to go in front of a judge. Obviously they knew the judge would grant the injunctive relief requested by the Sanders team -- the sequence of events speaks for itself.
And now everyone sees how heavy-handed and one-sided DWS's DNS organization is. Not to mention -- as you point out -- it does not make the DNC or the Democrats look good, either. And it distracts from the various flameouts happening on the Republican side. Oops. Gee, why does Debbie Blink-Blink still have a job, again?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)in the future? If Sanders campaign had not improperly/immorally fished around in Clinton's data in the first place, Sanders' campaign would not have lost temporary access to data. This pretty much starts with Sanders' campaign staff, and to some extent with Sanders' failure to manage his staff.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Why are you now calling the chair of the DNC names like "Debbie Blink-Blink"?
The Sanders campaign also said a number of false things at the beginning of this-- claiming it was one low-level staffer when it was at least three, including a fairly senior person. Several reports I've read said it was a reasonable action to cut the campaign off while they assessed damage.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)And then corrected that when they knew more. What else would you expect them to do?
As for 'reports' all that means is that a few other people hold an opinion that it was the right thing to do. They are of course wrong, because the DNC had no legal grounds to breach their contract in that way, which is why they immediately folded when Bernie sued.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...Debbie DID blink and blink and blink. It was truly weird. I noticed it right away, when the thing happened and before reading about the incident on DU. Then I was glad to see that others had noticed. Personally, I think it is a "tell" -- about lying and/or about her ulterior motives. If this is the worst name she ever gets called she'll be doing good.
Secondly, I don't LIKE Debbie Wasserman Schultz. My reasons go back to her tenure in Florida, where she actively supported Republicans over Democrats while serving as an officer of the Democratic Party in Florida (and, by the way, to all of you who require loyalty oaths: please turn your gaze towards Debbie to see a real malefactor). So anyway, after her ridiculous performance in front of the cameras, where she blinked like mad, I like to remind people of it -- since it really did give her away IMO.
Thirdly: Yes the Sanders campaign said things that were wrong at the beginning. Of course, this was in the face of being publicly accused by DWS of stealing data -- words like "theft" and "hacking" were being thrown around in the press -- the campaign was being smeared by a DNC chair who couldn't wait to go public. They were trying to downplay it and were playing defense. Understandable (to me) -- but I do agree, it is still no excuse for misleading statements. Tell the truth, and if you don't know, then say "I don't know, we'll have to get back to you on that" and find out the truth before making statements.
Finally: the reports you have read saying that DWS / DNC had the right to cut off data access, are 100% irrelevant, since that is not what the contract said. As evidenced by the sequence of events that transpired after the Sanders campaign filed suit.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I agree, DWS looks bad.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)When the story first broke, I agreed that the DNC's reaction to a single staffer making an innocent mistake sounded disproportionate. However, once it became clear that it was multiple, higher-level staffers, who had made deliberate attempts to access strategically valuable information, my perspective changed.
Of the reports I've read, some still think it was an overreaction, and some think it was a reasonable thing to do, to try and contain the damage that was done.
That is a different, murkier issue.
This post is about the Sanders' campaign's minimizing of their own actions, even as they use it as an attack on the DNC, and thus indirectly on Hillary Clinton.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)We will have the truth with an independent review from day one. However knowing how reluctant some seem to be that may be slow, and delayed until AFTER the primaries. I hope not because we should know what happened. I know what I saw DWS and Clinton do and it was slimy..what is otherwise called dirty politics. Like grave dancing is ugly, sorta like that.
angrychair
(12,281 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 22, 2015, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)
NGP-VAN stands by its original release, written by their CEO:
http://blog.ngpvan.com/news/data-security-and-privacy
The files that people keep calling "data logs" are not computer logs. They are human created summary of a certain chain of events. As an example, transaction logs like those found on a SQL database server and an application log like those found in a Windows PC are often ambiguous and rarely tell the whole story. They would be gibberish to someone who is not an IT professional with experience in understanding them.
No "data" left the VoteBuilder database. Nothing was printed. No actual voter information was accessed. Only thing that was Sen was what is called "header" information. All accounts were created with Sanders former data steward's information. Files and folders were created tagged with Sanders name in a format that they did not use for normal files. They left a trail that could not have been more visible and obvious than if they lined their path with gas and set it on fire.
I am not saying that they could not have handled It better. That was the whole reason they were fired, poor judgement.
No one files a federal lawsuit and demands an independent audit if they are doing something nefarious or with the intent to deceive.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."and thus indirectly on Hillary Clinton."
So you agree, then, that the DNC is essentially acting as a supporter of the Clinton campaign. Well at least we can agree on something.
Anyway, the Sanders team never initiated any attack. They did respond, and forcefully, to an egregious overstep by Deb Blink Blink.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... the criticisms of DWS are then turned into an attack on Clinton by those doing the attacking. You only have to find the messages online where people say this episode has turned them against Clinton, even though she has nothing to do with it.
I will concede that DWS probably wants Clinton to win, though.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that many overeager Sanders supporters have tried to make this into an attack on Clinton. Up to this point, though, there is no indication that Clinton had anything to do with it. She did make some statements to the press though, so that does leave her more open to criticism / suspicion. But not from me.
I will await with interest what is found through discovery, if things ever go that far. If not, oh well. I won't be making accusations against the Clinton camp with zero evidence. Nor am I assuming that anything damaging will be found against Clinton or her campaign, if the full investigation happens.
DWS and the DNC though, they already look like bumbling wannabe thugs, and for this we do have evidence.
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)discover they could see Clinton's data.
Their IT guy, who they fired, claims he attempted to get evidence of the breach - because he felt the Sanders data was equally exposed but he had to use other campaign data to prove it. I think the data logs of their activity back him up on that. And the software vendor says they didn't export any of these "lists" they generated - which backs up the IT guy's claims.
The problem is that last October, another two breaches occurred. The Sanders campaign manager feels "very confident" that the Sanders data was compromised at that time. They told the DNC about it and the DNC got the security hole plugged. But the DNC handled the rest very differently than this time - they largely appear to have ignored going beyond closing the security hole.
DWS called for an independent audit of this breach which the Sanders campaign welcomed and encouraged during their first press conference on this. But the Sanders campaign want this audit to extend back to when they feel their data was compromised - and DWS behaved very differently - no independent audit, no media leak, no suspension of a campaign access to the system.
If they do not get agreement from the DNC to do an independent audit of the breaches last October, then they'll take the issue to court.
Bernie and his people do not appear to have lied to anyone. And now, they're going to try get to the bottom of this mess whether the DNC or Clinton campaign like it or not. I find it vary hard to blame them. It could get rather embarrassing for the DNC or the Clinton campaign.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)It appears we will continue to do so, but hopefully in agreeable fashion. I will just say of all the claims I've heard, the one I believe the least is that Uretsky was only trying to document the problem.
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)I'm not going to mess around with lists.
I'd already know if I could access it under the software hood (from the sounds of it, one could do that fairly easily).
But let's say he couldn't and wanted to rip off Clinton data. I'd just run a query report in each state with the voter ID and Clinton fields like Priority, Support, Turnout, etc. I'd start with IA and NH and move on through the other states according to campaign priority.-For example, I might not bother with SC until later because Bernie's so far behind there. And then I'd just export those reports as I went.
That would get me complete data for each Clinton field I wanted in each state with one pass through each states data (arguably the fastest path to do this). Then I'd export the reports.
But that's not what he did. He jumped from state to state doing somewhat arbitrary and incomplete lists that he didn't export. It was all over the map. If turnout was the most important field (an article suggested), why isn't there an attempt at a full set of lists for turnout? Why "priority" in one state, "turnout" in another and "support" in another, that are usually incomplete sets of the available selections and inconsistent with what they did in other states.
That behavior strongly looks like someone is kicking tires to find out the scope of the data breach. It does not look like someone is trying to steal bulk data because you wouldn't go about it in the fashion he did. And they didn't export a single list of what they did with Clintons data.
So I'm more firmly in the camp that he was not stealing the data than I was after reviewing all the logs.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Just because you'd do it one way doesn't mean he would. And why did he share the results with other staffers? Why didn't he go after O'Malley's data? Wouldn't one, or two, or three, or four, or twenty queries be enough? And it sounds like the reason he didn't export anything is because he didn't have the power to, not because he didn't want to.
I just don't believe it.
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)Several people's word is better than one persons.
If you're doing something unethical or illegal, like ripping off data, most likely, you're not going to say anything to anyone. I think folks are probably going to want to talk it over and think about it a bit, etc before joining you. But a couple of these folks were up and at it within 3-6 minutes. That's not a lot of time to convince folks "hey, let's steal Hillary's data". It's a reasonable amount of time to explain "there's a security breach, our data is exposed, I want witnesses to document the scope of this breach by doing this = log around into states and select lists on Hillary's fields and save them for proof - don't download anything!"
They exported one summary report of some of Hillary's data and they exported a list generated from their own data in Nevada. So no, they had the ability to export reports and lists.
I really appreciate that you have been polite, respectful, courteous, etc. I have no problem agreeing to disagree ... though I really would prefer to have agreed with you. Thanks.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... and to able to direct VAN as to how to recreate the error at the time he was doing the queries
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)before their session timed out. They come back for a minute before the breach is turned off.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/18/merged_document.pdf
The next user is in about 3 minutes after the first at 10:43 and they generate lists using Clintons data for most of the time - nearly 40 minutes.
At 10:46, the user I suspect as Uretsky accesses Clintons data for about 11 minutes. doesn't access Clintons stuff for about 16 mins (creates some users which is why I think it's Uretsky), then he resumes for about 10 mins. My guess would be that during the 11 minutes he's not doing much at all, he's on the phone or giving instructions. I doubt he's giving instructs because the other two are carrying on. So he's probably on the phone to the campaign about 20 mins into the discovery and maybe 14 minutes after he found out.
The last user in does one search around 11am and saved nothing - roughly 1 minute of Clinton data access - probably Uretsky testing a different login that he'd just created.
Uretsky may have looked at this stuff for 14 minutes or less before he got on the horn. And they fired him, so they say, for not telling them soon enough.
I would have been fired too because I would have done something like he'd done and the way he did it - except I would have gone for O'Malley's data if possible - trying to stay away from Clinton's stuff.
Roland99
(53,345 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)GD/P is a cesspool right now. And a waste of time.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MADem
(135,425 posts)Roland99
(53,345 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... anyone even after 40 minutes and 4 other people viewing this data.
Sanders DD could prove the exposure with one query and that wouldn't taken minutes ...
The Sanders DD did the DNC and HRC campaign wrong, end of story
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)The vendor could say "that was just one field in one state for a few seconds. No big deal"
By going around to a number of states, by looking at a few fields, by testing the selection array on them and by allowing a number of users access to it with various security levels, then you could better describe the breadth of the security exposure. That what it looks like they did in the log.
In their haste, I do not think the Sanders campaign people understood that -not not fully.
And they did alert people in the campaign sooner than before the breach was closed. It was going up the chain of command in the Sanders campaign when the DNC called.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... not a biased party who could benefit from viewing the opo data even for a second.
It wasn't a few fields, it looks like they were doing these searches for almost 2 hours seeing the DB logs...
The Sanders DD director could have immediately notified the vendor that there was something wrong and to cut the whole thing off if he thought Sanders data was exposed.
That's not what they did
They didn't even bother filtering out HRC data... they continued searching on the exclusive HRC data for nearly 2 hours
There's little way the Sanders DD, and the 4 other people who did searches on data not provisioned to the Sanders campaign for longer than 40 minutes, use good judgement
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)And nobody was on it for 47 mins solid.
Here's the breakdown:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=939658
It is not as you claim above. Those are the logs and facts. You can't fantasize "nearly 2 hrs" and some of the other stuff you are.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... queries for 2 hours continuously non stop just perfor the searches within a 2 hour period.
The bigger issue to be addressed is the Sanders DD saying they needed to do the searches to examine the extent of the breach which turns out to be false also.
If the DD suspected there was a breach of Sanders data he could've called the vendor to shot down the whole thing.
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)Your claim:
"they didn't have to pound the DB with endless
... queries for 2 hours continuously non stop just perfor the searches within a 2 hour period. "
My post details that isn't what they did. The breach was far short of 2 hrs.
Users:
1. 15 minutes plus 1 minute
2. 40 mins
3. 11 mins plus 10 mins (where he does different stuff)
4. 1 minute (looks like to test a login)
I think the 2 hours claim is an overstatement.
You forget or do not consider that the IT Data manager at Sanders campaign had had at least a couple of breaches before. No media was called by the DNC. No auditor arranged for by the DNC to determine the extent of exposure of their data loss. No cutting off the other campaign from access. Nothing but "thanks for telling us" He had done as you suggest at least twice before and it didn't do him or his campaign much good. He never got much assurance or analysis of what they lost or peace of mind that they'd nailed the problem.
A definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing while hoping for different results. Some may well not agree with his actions but he chose to do something different this time. And under the circumstances, I agree with him. I would have done the same thing.
And if he'd done what he did the last two times - not done what he did this time, Sanders data today could still be exposed. His actions have led to Sanders being in a very good legal position to press the issue in court if need be. And maybe expose the Clinton campaign of pinching his data (they're very confident someone compromised it - they want to know who). Without what Josh did, how could they do that today? They'd have no proof or witnesses it ever happened. Someday, the Sanders campaign might figure that out.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)If Sen. Sander and his campaign who supports a full and comprehensive independent auditing did this he will be held accountable. If the DNC and their vendor and the Clinton did nothing wrong and acted in good faith they will be exonerated.
It is just a little bit odd that Sen. Sanders and his campaign want this comprehensive and independent auditing while the Clinton campaign and the DNC Chair don't seem to want it. Strange?
FloridaBlues
(4,668 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Did the DNC Chair and the Hillary campaign want a comprehensive investigation or just one that focused on this one issue?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)it would disassemble my entire opinion on the matter. please enlighten us.
because last I heard was Hillary saying on stage that they'll just put it behind them?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I'm glad Americans are getting a chance to see this now, instead of later.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)one who takes shit and does what they're told?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and not try to bluff when he doesn't even have a pair of deuces.
... is one who knows that thoughtful and calm strategy is better than bilious bluster and erratic behavior when trying to deal with a crisis.
... is one who accepts the consequences of trusting the wrong people and doesn't blame others for his own failures.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...when a court appearance loomed... I'd say it was DWS and the DNC who were bluffing.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... he cooperated. The parties came to an agreement. No matter how much he cries about being the victim, he's the one who fired his communications director for stealing data. This won't end well for him. Polls are already showing that. Even if he "wins" he loses the nomination by a greater percentage. Apparently his staff was so worried about his chances, they thought it was worth cheating and stealing.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and got called on it with a lawsuit, and proceeded to cave rather than face going before a judge.
You can spin it all you want but those facts are not in dispute. It all happened very publicly, due to the actions of DWS. You might want to scan the news reports.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)They got caught. This is bluster to hide the guilt. Its not playing very well for him.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I see you are taking your cues from Debbie Blink-Blink, who claimed the Sanders campaign had "nothing but bluster", shortly before CAVING and restoring access to the data -- as required by the contract, whose rules she felt free to break at will.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Just like Bernie knows his campaign did wrong yet now pretends to be the poor victim. he knows the truth too. But his play acting won't change anything.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and he immediately fired one, and suspended two others. (not sure what the difference is but that is how it was reported). So no, he is not pretending to be a victim about that issue.
Nor is he pretending to be a victim w.r.t. having access to his campaign data pulled. He is simply insisting that the DNC live up to the clear and unambiguous terms of the contract they are both parties to.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)The purpose of his lawsuit, was so that he could spin the story as if the DNC had "caved". He didn't have a leg to stand on, and he knew it. it was all theatrics too save face, and you guys are falling for it. If he had cooperated from the beginning, none of this would have been an issue. But he didn't, so that shows poor judgement to me.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I guess you believe that if you say something often enough, people will believe it.
But here's a clue dear: no one believes your version of events. Because the way it played out, that is not the version that makes sense. The only caving that was done, was done by Debbie Blink-Blink and the DNC.
Unless you believe that Up is Down, of course. Which some here seem to believe
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I want someone who won't be pushed around. The Sanders campaign wasted no time with their response to the improper actions of DWS and the DNC.
Bernie Sanders fired the first staffer immediately, then suspended two others. He apologized directly and sincerely to Hillary Clinton during the debate. They cooperated. What the hell else do you want them to do? We know what DWS wants them to do: fold up their tent and go home. They aren't going to do that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)He's not a good judge of character is he? Trusting the wrong people is not very presidential. Blaming others for his own failures is not very presidential. Apparently the public agrees... his most recent poll numbers indicate that he's losing ground yet again.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and that is all that counts right now.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)eom
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)And I would ask you to be specific as to what falsehood you think I'm spreading.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)Sorry for the intrusion, but it had to be said.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)FloridaBlues
(4,668 posts)Bernie also magically believes he's going to win the election too.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Bernie has broad support and people are enthused and capable of working hard to get him elected. Very different campaign than the establishment candidate.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It ain't going back in. She tried to destroy him, and he says let's put everything out on the table and see what really happened.
Firewall down on a database? Searches on the name 'Hillary' will return data information from both the campaigns. Thats how it works. They don't go out seeking it. It shows up on searches, as if by 'magic'. Same for Hillary's side, they most likely also knew and had access and didn't report it.
Sanders is right to call for a full investigation, and Hillary partisans are desperate that doesn't happen. Hillary backpedaled and called it a 'stupid' issue, after initially saying info was 'stolen'. Obviously her and Debbie Wasserman Schultz don't want an investigation. Why would that be?
I believe they are working in concert, which would be election fraud IMHO.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I really doubt any query was simply "hillary" though.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Are you sure you want to go there?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Fraud by any other name is still fraud.
DWS has concluded there should only be one voter who counts in the primaries. Herself. If Clinton's campaign is coordinating with her on all this primary suppression, it crosses the line into CONSPIRACY, which is election fraud IMHO.
Election fraud in a democracy is treason, IMHO.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Seriously?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Via 'primary supression', that conspiracy would be TREASON IMHO.
IF being the operative word.
A full investigation is in order. If Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton campaign start impeding and covering up, it will turn into a 'Watergate', and rightfully so.
We will get to the bottom of this, eventually.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)So it follows that you think the behavior is treasonous, if I read if correctly.
Sanders campaign tries to take Clinton's data, and Clinton is the one that is facing Watergate. I really don't see it.
Anyway, while I've enjoyed this exchange (seriously), it's clear that not much more is going to come out of it. I'd prefer we leave it here, if that's okay with you.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The fact both Hillary's campaign and DWS were simularily bellicose and accusatuional the day Sanders campaign informed them of the breach, and went mute on the subject simultaneously, definitely raises eyebrows.
A full investigation will give us the truth. Unless they engage in a cover-up. That would sink them and the party.
If it isn't treason, what is it? Fraudulent conspiracy?
Sanders campaign didn't try to take anything, Clinton partisans made that up. Again, a full investigation is warranted. Her partisan supporters sure don't want a full investigation. Apparently they are afraid of what might be uncovered on their end?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid alert. nt
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post, absolutely bereft of any fact or truth, should be consigned to the tin foil hat room or Free Republic. Just making shit up should not be acceptable.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like some snowflake had their safe-space violated.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree that this is over the top. The Sanders campaign being temporarily spanked for some idiot staffers doesn't even come close to treason.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Treason? We survived Reagan, Nixon and the Bush boys. An internal battle like this hardly rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors. I'm a BerniBot from the first but charges like that, to me, go way beyond the pale.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Purge-fever and thin-skinnededness are making this "discussion" site such a... delight....
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)You are the ONLY one that factually "gets it".
From the destruction of his campaign, to how a database works with the firewall down.
I assume you, as myself have worked in IT before.
Kudo's dude, you nailed it.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Wonder why the Hillary camp is so eager to put it behind them while Bernie keeps standing on high ground.
I thought Hillary and the DNC had dirt on him! what happened guys?! LMAO XD
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)if Bernie's files weren't downloaded by the Clinton camp when the firewall went down the first time and simply wasn't reported?
And how do we know that repeated problems with the firewall wasn't a plan to entrap the Sander's campaign?
We need an independent investigation of DWS and the DNC...
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)They are the campaign and communication experts here.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Devine is very experienced in these matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tad_Devine
I don't know much about Jeff Weaver, other than he always stays on message. No matter what the topic is, he hammers away relentlessly. That is a good quality for a campaign manager.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)It hurts my heart to read those names in presidential campaign history. What could have been...
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Gore as well, as knew from his time as VP that Richard Clarke knowledge and advice on terrorism/Bin laden was solid gold.
Ah well, two men destroyed by Rove and Bushco. They have both done amazing things since, haven't they?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Nyan
(1,192 posts)for DNC and HRC campaign to come out in support of thorough and independent investigation.
Still waiting. No response yet.
And until then, I'm not interested in any posturing and false outrage on this matter.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I'm just pointing out what I observed. I'm not outraged, just disappointed that someone I admire is saying these things. You'll note that I tried really hard to absolve him of as much responsibility as I could.
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)Already happened, Friday:
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign released a statement on Friday afternoon calling for a swift investigation into the breach of its voter data by members of opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) staff." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-campaign-responds-dnc-data-breach
It can't be any more clear than that.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)Because DNC has to say yes to this.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the Clinton campaign wants an investigation to be limited to this incident.
However, given there is evidence of negligence in protecting data by the vendor, the Sanders campaign wants a more complete investigation that goes back further.
Since their lawsuit touches on this angle, I suspect they will keep pushing for a FULL investigation.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)it would be Hillary's campaign trying to tap into the vast grassroots support the Bernie campaign has generated, not the other way around. The DNC is trying to put this incident behind us now, but I bet they were the ones who were up to something they shouldn't have been.
I'm still waiting for some unwanted contribution pitch to show up in my inbox from Hillary's campaign...
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Not even the Sanders campaign, which fired or suspended three people.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)going on between the Clinton campaign and this DNC vendor than Hillary's campaign should support an independent investigation into what happened, who's data ended up where, and why steps weren't taken to prevent it again after it happened once before.
The DNC restored Bernie's data access so quickly because they want the issue to die, and that's very suspicious.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Here is the statement from NGP Van's website about the event:
http://blog.ngpvan.com/data-security-and-privacy
On Wednesday morning, there was a release of VAN code. Unfortunately, it contained a bug. For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system. So for voters that a user already had access to, that user was able to search by and view (but not export or save or act on) some attributes that came from another campaign.
Hillary supporters are hysterically exaggerating what happened.
Sanders' employees did searches.
On Snope, one of them explains that he was trying to determine that there was a breach and what the breach reached.
I briefly saw a list of the searches that were made. As one who is not a programmer but who, in the context of small donor fundraising and later running a business, set up databases and used them regularly, I would say that the searches were intended to identify Hillary data accessible by the Sanders campaign and characterize just what that data was. The vendor, NGP Van says that the data was briefly viewed (the breach did not last long. I have read 40 minutes or a few hours. That needs to be investigated.) but NOT EXPORTED OR SAVED.
Now it is possible that the vendor that was selected and hired by the DNC is mistaken or even lying, but those are the facts.
If you are interested in the statement of Sanders' employee about why he did searches on the data, Snopes published that information yesterday.
This matter needs to be investigated. We need a database manager that is careful enough so that this kind of incident does not happen again.
NPG Van said it was not involved in the first incident that the Sanders campaign reported.
We need a thorough independent investigation of the DNC's administration of this campaign because these mistakes and accusations, many utterly false apparently, are dividing the party.
I hope that the Hillary campaign will be amenable to and cooperate with such an investigation.
Hillary is making us women look emotionally unstable with the way she is handling this.
Bernie looks like the strong, decisive and responsible leader here.
As a woman, I am proud of the integrity and honesty that Bernie has shown in this matter.
But I think for the moment we should all accept the vendor, NPG Van's statement about what happened as true and end the hysterical exaggerations.
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)especially during a primary. DWS went to the PRESS, ie public, with her story, so lets bring the whole story out. lets have an audit, why was the firewall down? who else was snooping? was it crony capitalism that got NGP VAN the contract for their inferior product?
are they being paid with party funds or campaign funds? does NGP VAN report to DWS only and if not, who else?
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Oh wait....
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Very disappointing: Bernie Sanders repeats falsehoods about data breach.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251937134
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This post lies and is attacking a Democratic candidate for President
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 22, 2015, 01:24 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The poster's personal interpretation does not rise to the threshold of proof.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't even know what to say.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Really? I think we've given up on hiding posts that are spreading falsehoods about candidates, even if the post is doing so.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, please. The post lays out a case. If you disagree, respond and rebut.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I think this is the first alert on a post of mine, at least that I know of.
And one person voted to hide it? That is hilarious, and ridiculous. I'd really like to know what the brave alerter meant by lies, too. And another person accused me of spreading falsehoods. Just name-calling.
Politicub
(12,328 posts)How can this be? He's the career politician who isn't. Or something.
A unicorn with a beautiful, glittery mane wearing a #feelthebern tee shirt just flew from my butt as I typed Sanders' name. He's *that* magical, you guys.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)seriously on what world are you living in? in la la land. Go Bernie go after the people who broke the law. They mucked up.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I don't know if any law was broken, but accessing data you're not supposed to is certainly unethical.
Laser102
(816 posts)We know someone on his staff did it. For him to pursue a lawsuit against a political organization he just joined, is not going to win him anymore fans in the party. It makes him look like a typical politician.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)During the time that the Firewall/ACL/whatever failed, when Sanders' team ran normal searches, the system returned Clinton data intermixed with Sanders data.
Should the IT director have continued doing searches in this situation? No.
That's why Bernie fired him, and the others involved.
HOWEVER:
1. Sanders campaign discovered the glitch back in October, shortly after they licensed use of the database. And notified DWS/DNC -- who did nothing.
2. What kind of IT group tests a patch after installation by monitoring the system to see which client receives the wrong data first? And then, when they see their patch has failed, instead of shutting it down immediately, continues to monitor to see what the client does with the other clients' data? NONE, THAT'S WHAT KIND.
A NORMAL IT team actively tests systems to ensure their Firewalls/ACL/whatever works.
I used to work for a customer service company that supports multiple large mutual fund companies. Can you imagine if they used such shoddy practices? Where MT logs in as MT with privileges to TIAA-Cref files, tries to search for a customer and comes up with Fidelity files while IT is monitoring the system waiting to see what happens.
I used to work in a hospital lab. Can you imagine if they used such shoddy practices? Where billing logs in as billing to look at billing data, and instead sees lab test results? And the lab tech is trying to review test results and report them to the doctor, and instead sees insurance information? Or workers are trying to view one patients records and instead getting another patient?
THERE IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY WRONG AT THAT SW COMPANY. AND THERE IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY WRONG THAT THIS WASN'T CORRECTED LONG AGO.
Madmiddle
(459 posts)Bernie reported a breech in October, these firewalls are simple to maintain and are fool proof in the hands of the company that is maintaining them. The only explanation for the breech is. it is quite deliberate, on the part of the Clinton campaign. So, having said that, I would say you are wrong, Bernie is not lying nor is he stretching any truths here. This is a smear against the Sanders campaign pure and simple. Sorry you are blind to this, but to bad!
Tarc
(10,601 posts)One rather major one being that Sanders has already fired one individual and is reviewing the status of at least 3 others. If this was, as you absurdly suggest, "deliberate" on the part of the "Clinton campaign", why is Bernie firing or otherwise disciplining his own staff that were involved?
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)There is no evidence whatsoever that there was a conspiracy. By far the most likely explanation is that there was an accidental glitch, and some Sanders supporters took advantage of it. All that by itself is no big deal. It's the Sanders campaign and the DNC's responses to it that have escalated a minor issue into a full-blown conflagration.
And Bernie Sanders continues to say things that are false about it.
You have no evidence-- absolutely none-- but are accusing Clinton of serious charges.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... that doesn't mean someone can just walk in and look around.
Sanders DD knew he shouldn't be viewing the data the milisecond it came up in a query, he never alerted VAN but continued to do searches on and receiving data he knew was meant for the HRC campaign
The Sanders DD was wrong
Tarc
(10,601 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)This needs to be done to prevent DWS and other future chairpersons from thinking they can just break a contract anytime they'd like.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...so they are suing for damages. The basis of the suit is breach of contract. The contract spells out what is to be done in exactly this type of situation -- and it says the DNC must give the campaign notice first, and then give them 10 days to correct any issues, BEFORE they can take further action. Debbie Blink Blink knows full well how crucial access to their data is for any campaign. She did not have to take the action she did. By breaking the contract, she showed she has little regard for rules herself. Therefore it is hard to take her seriously when she gets bent out of shape about other people breaking rules.
Tarc
(10,601 posts)Being in a political party isn't a right, the DNC didn't do anything wrong by cutting off access to the hackers in the Bernie camp.
Seriously, grow up.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but the DNC did overstep when they cut off access.
Unless you are saying they were not bound by the contract. In which case, why bother with a contract at all?
Furthermore, you are spreading disinformation when you use the term "hackers". It has a specific meaning, and that is not at all what happened here -- even though there was improper access, which everyone acknowledges, there was NO HACKING. NONE.
Sorry if you don't like being challenged in your firmly held opinions. That would indicate you may be the one who needs to do some growing up.
Madmiddle
(459 posts)the fact that Hillary stuff is being sent to Sanders' supporters.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)And email addresses can be obtained from many sources. All these Democratic organizations share information. Did you ever give to a congressional candidate? Chances are you're in the database.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Thus, they double down with this "We were led into temptation" scenario--which is utter horseshit, otherwise they wouldn't have fired their own data director.
They didn't even TELL Sanders about this when it happened, when the vendors CAUGHT their guy snooping around in Clinton's data. They thought they could brush this under the rug.
The only reason Sanders was informed at all was because DWS CALLED him to talk to him about it.
I think Sanders is being bamboozled, myself. I suspect that, the more this investigation goes forward, the more he will see how horrifically his subordinates behaved, and he'll be annoyed. These people who were supposed to be his confidantes and campaign stewards in essence played an "anything to win" card, got caught, and screwed him.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)The number of facts that some of them (not all, before you alert) are willing to ignore to defend Sanders, and the number of tenuous and unsupported leaps they make to accuse Clinton, who is the wronged and aggrieved party here, is remarkable.
I thought we were the reality-based party here. But maybe we aren't as much as think we are.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Anyone looking at this in an unbiased fashion would have to take issue with them. They didn't notify the vendor of anything--the VENDOR caught them and shut them out, and only then, when they realized that they were busted, 'maybe' someone made a call (but I'm not seeing any proof of that, either--all I am seeing is that VAN took action when they saw someone rooting around where they didn't belong).
If you changed "Sanders" to "Clinton" and retold this story, there'd be hair on fire here, demands for frogmarching, etc. The Clinton people here are angered and annoyed, but most here seem to realize that it really does appear that Sanders is being bullshitted by his staffers--his senior staffers, most particularly.
It's pretty bad when he had to LEARN about this from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Can you imagine his ire after realizing he was blindsided like that?
His OWN people were keeping him out of the loop re: this very serious matter. He's got to wonder
"What ELSE are they keeping from me?"
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)IMO, this is much ado about nothing, and we'd do better going after him on capability, experience, and issues.
To me this is a big "oops", and is a big red herring in an election year. It also has big potential for a backfire effect. Best course of action: let it go.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I actually think Bernie Sanders is a fine person and good candidate. But right now his campaign is the one that is refusing to move on from this. That's very disappointing to me personally.
As for some of DU more generally, we're going into moon landing hoax territory here.
randys1
(16,286 posts)thing public.
I believe she did it with the intent of making Bernie look bad, and it backfired.
As one of a very few people here at DU who care little to nothing about personalities and only cares that the next prez has a D after his or her name and not an R or T for teaparty, I will say this: both candidates were harmed by something that NEVER should have seen the daylight of the public.
Maybe DWS obvious attempts to help Hillary like limiting debates and scheduling them the way she does is what a party chair is supposed to do once they determine which candidate has the best chance of winning.
But even debategate is hurting Hillary, because she does so well in debates that if we had more and scheduled them when people are watching, it would help her.
I am ALL for helping Hillary Clinton if she turns out to be the best chance of beating the cons.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I agree though that the Sanders campaign already had reason to be suspicious of DWS, and so it was natural for them to think this was more in that line.
However, the DNC does have a history of heavy handedness. They more or less disenfranchised Florida and Michigan in 2008 for daring to move their primaries up.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)all of a sudden is your friend....that is if you happen to be a supporter of Hillary Clinton
Chuck Todd was being a boneheaded Hillary Clinton shill here,so I imagine you now love Chuck Todd now
Hillary Clinton cannot talk about the real issues in detail so its attack,attack,
Wonder where her campaign picked up this strategy?......
Obviously Hillary is nervous....2008 !! All over again.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)It's condescending. I'm not supporting Todd at all.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)There were two separate incidents. The one two months earlier was detected by Sanders campaign workers finding they had access to Clinton data and they reported that to the DNC at that time. It had something to do with a firewall failure. The DNC was supposed to have the vendor fix this problem.
Another technical failure happened the day before the controversy erupted. The Sanders campaign tried to gather evidence to document the nature of the failure and that is what those saved searches was all about. They knew when they saved this material, the tracks would be left. Since they had reported the malfunction to their superior, they were not trying to hide anything.
The mistake that was made was when the first campaign aid actually read some of the material. No question he had to be dismissed, even if his act was simply a nature to probe the extent of the database letting its guard down so to speak. There was additionally a bug detected which allowed a confidential field that should have remained hidden to be visible to the eye of the campaign users. That was an additional failure in the software which needed to be fixed.
The statement has been made that the Sanders' campaign also believes his data has been breached that is in the Court filing. And that is one of the reasons he insists on a full investigation by an independent auditor, i.e., no one related to participants in this controversy.
I would like to suggest you do some research as to what happened in 2008 when this same problem reared its ugly head, the matter was handled behind closed doors, and the one person deemed to have inappropriately accessed data was fired. No leaks to the press, nothing like that. You might be surprised who breached and who was targeted.
Happy holidays to you and yours.
Sam
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I haven't been able to find much on what was alleged to have happened in 2008, other than what was in the Sanders campaign lawsuit. Can you point me to it?
Happy holidays to you as well.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)He was the previous DNC Chair. In the interview, Dean said a similar thing happened in 2008, when the Clinton camp was accused of stealing data from Barack Obama. Dean said the matter was handled behind closed doors, and it was not discussed in the public domain. One of the prominent remedies was that a campaign worker from Hillary's side was fired, but that was the only remedy. Dean said that should be the only remedy for the Sanders' campaign as well.
I did find another article which might interest you. Particularly note the fourth paragraph:
Uretsky told The Post that he and the others conducted the searches of Clinton data after they discovered the software glitch only in an effort to discover the extent of their own data exposure. “We intentionally did it in a way that was trackable and traceable so that when they did an audit they would be able to see exactly what we did,” he said.
Uretsky said there was no attempt to take Clinton information out of the software system.
Weaver blamed the software vendor for the breach, which allowed all campaigns to access one another’s data for a time, insisting that the Sanders campaign had actually quietly alerted the DNC to problems with another vendor system in October.
In the lawsuit, the campaign argued that a “similar security incident” during the 2008 presidential campaign resulted in “unintentional transmission of confidential information” to Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign against Barack Obama.
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-threatens-to-sue-dnc-if-access-to-voter-list-isnt-restored/2015/12/18/fa8d6df8-a5a2-11e5-ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html
I include this just to assure you this is factual.
Take care.
Sam
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... of data. I'd really like to see a transcript or video of Dean's interview. Do you have a link? Thanks.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... that's like saying me and 3 of my friends needed to search an apartment that had its front door open for 40 minutes to see how I was affected.
They knew the second the queries came back with HRC data they shouldn't be viewing it and didn't bother alerting anyone but just kept searching for 40 minutes among 4 different people.
The Sanders DD was wrong
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Propagate lies before the INDEPENDENT investigation has been done.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)He said that at least one staffer screwed up and got fired. He is not lying about anything. The information was made available by the vendor's mistake, just as Sanders claims. As Sanders says, there is no dispute about that. You are just trying to twist his words to make them mean something they obviously were not intended to mean. Cheap and sleazy.
George II
(67,782 posts)....specific voter searches and saved them in a folder named "Targets".
He's bobbing and weaving and equivocating with "That information came into our campaign", neglecting the manner in which "That information came into our campaign".
From the logs:
Texas
10:46:00 TX Creates folder “Targets” and saved HFA Primary Priority 9-10 as search “Not Sanders 9”
10:47:00 TX Searched: HFA Primary Priority 0-1
10:48:00 TX Saved list "Not Hilary" into folder "Targets"
10:49:00 TX Searched: HFA Primary Priority 9-10
10:49:00 TX Saved list "Not Sanders" into folder "Targets"
New Hampshire
10:56:00 NH Searched: 2016:HFA Combined Persuasion 80-100
10:57:00 NH Created folder "Ranged Targets" and saved list "Persuasion 80-100"
Hawaii
10:57:45 HI Logs into HI
11:01:00 HI Creates user csmith_bernie
11:07:00 HI Creates user csanchez_bernie
(note, they set up NEW accounts while in Hawaii, and then immediately returned to New Hampshire!)
11:09:48 NH Logs into NH
11:13:00 NH Searched: HFA Turnout 60-100
11:13:00 NH Saved list "Turout 60+" into folder "Ranged Targets"
11:15:00 NH Searched: HFA Turnout 40-60
11:17:00 NH Saved list "Turnout 40-60" into folder "Ranged Targets"
11:22:00 NH Searched: HFA Support 50-100
11:23:00 NH Saved list "Not Sanders" into folder "Ranged Targets"
Ohio
11:23:35 OH Logs into OH
11:26:00 OH Grants full VF access to javiergNV
11:27:27 NH Logs into NH
11:27:38 NH Attempts to run a search. At this point cannot access page sections.
11:41:17 NH Hits counts and cross tabs 4 times
And there are LOTS more examples of data "That....came into our campaign" from South Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and several others. Except for the nefarious access to Hawaii in order to set up new accounts, virtually all other states accessed are states voting early in the primary schedule.
Plus, the Sanders people said they were only in Clinton's database for "40 minutes", but the first time stamp was 10:40 and the last time stamp was 12:24. That's an hour and 44 minutes, certainly more than 40 minutes!
This will all catch up to them - thankfully the investigation is going to proceed.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)of that! And this is just a sampling. How sad he is trying to make his campaign out to be the victims.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... and DB logs are REALLY hard to tamper with imho
George II
(67,782 posts)And you're right, the logs are difficult to tamper with. They include the time of the access, the state involved, and the actual activity. Quite illuminating.
Original story about the intrusion:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/bernie-s/Sanders-take-Clinton-voter-data/
Link to the logs:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSBeQvNakGxuty36ACPFNaNLNeoqgz2Pn7e2x0VMYds/edit
Note the earliest and latest times - the total time expired was 1 hour 44 minutes, NOT the "about 40 minutes" that Sanders' campaign manager Weaver claimed.
This is not so innocent on the part of the Sanders staffers, and most likely this is not going to go away. Reminder, Sanders fired one staffer and suspended two staffers. That doesn't happen to people who haven't done anything wrong or, at worst, illegal.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....from ALL data including Clinton's. And that was temporary until the vendor could figure out a way of keeping Sanders' people from continuing to access Clinton's data.
randome
(34,845 posts)The legal difference between the two terms is immense.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)very disappointing
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)http://blog.ngpvan.com/data-security-and-privacy
Everyone from Hillary fans to the Washington Post has provided erroneous information about what happened.
NGP Van is the vendor that manages the database in question.
These are the facts as NGP Van presents them. I cannot quote the entire statement, so please go to their website and read their explanation.
First, Bernie did not break into Hillary's database. The combined, complete database that included SOME of Hillary's data was provided to the Sanders campaign due to a "bug" in the release of the information, a bug due to NGP Van's activities.
Per NGP Van:
On Wednesday morning, there was a release of VAN code. Unfortunately, it contained a bug. For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system. So for voters that a user already had access to, that user was able to search by and view (but not export or save or act on) some attributes that came from another campaign.
The breach was brief:
Again, this bug was a brief isolated issue, and we are not aware of any previous reports of such data being inappropriately available. We look forward to supporting all our Democratic clients, and in particular apologize to the DNC, Clinton and Sanders campaigns for our bug Wednesday.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Of the party while suing at a tune of 600k a day of the peoples money. You know, the ordinary citizen he campaigns on protecting. Unless otherwise serves him well. Just... gross.
oasis
(53,693 posts)Oh well.
Number23
(24,544 posts)and stupid it is.
Because even though the ONE thing that is irrefutable in all of this -- that the Sanders campaign is the one that engaged in unethical and possibly illegal behavior -- Sanders supporters keep trying to portray every thing he does as noble and valiant. As though he is slaying some mythical beast instead of actually helping it along.
People here keep hollering about how DWS' banning his campaign from accessing their content was without merit because "look how quickly she pulled it" without seeing to understand that the reason they were again able to access their files was because the Sanders campaign finally cooperated with the DNC.
It might make people feel better to say that it was Sanders' David vs the DNC that brought the DNC to its knees but its apparent to every thinking person that Sanders got access to his data again because his campaign finally cooperated with the DNC. This almost obsessive reluctance from Sanders supporters to admit that he was wrong and has handled this INCREDIBLY badly since is leading to alot of this foolish behavior. No matter how badly he behaves, his fans cheer which seems to encourage more bad behavior and incredibly, fundraising off of the bad behavior. It is a textbook definition of a self-fulfilling bias.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the behavior of some IT staff on the Sanders campaign was stupid, yes. There is no evidence as of yet that it was unethical in the sense of trying to steal information and the person who was fired denies that was his motivation. There are plenty of technical people who have pointed out how this sort of thing is done to document a software defect. I have said before and I'll say again, we do not know whether the Sanders staffers looked in order to document the defect, or whether they really were trying to snag some useful information from the Clinton data they looked at. In any case, the Sanders campaign did the right thing immediately.
You can go ahead and spout that "the Sanders campaign finally cooperated with the DNC" but that is not how it played out on the public stage. That is what DWS would like you to think; that is the narrative they are pushing. I'm not buying it, not for one. single. minute.
Finally, you seem to not understand that there is a thing called contract law that applies here. You say "people keep hollering" about DWS' action in pulling access from the data, saying it was "without merit" because of how quickly she relented. No, we say it was without merit because we have read the text of the Sanders suit as well as the addenda, including the contract terms. L'il Debbie Blink-Blink breached the contract pure and simple.
You think this is the first time one campaign has been caught looking at another campaign's data, whether intentionally or not? Hell no. That's why the contract has very specific provisions for such a situation. But for some reason, some people here seem to think that Ms. "He Broke The Rules!!!!!!!" does not, herself, have to abide by any rules she finds inconvenient. THAT is why she ends up looking like a total buffoon in this.
Number23
(24,544 posts)But please don't sit up here and pretend that anything you wrote is true or in any way shape or form based on reality.
The Sanders campaign has fired MULTIPLE people over this crap and you are still here screaming that "technically they didn't do anything wrong" and whatever that mess was about contracts.
You basically did, EXACTLY what I have been saying Sanders supporters have been doing for the last few days with their truly epic levels of spin, obfuscation and denying reality. As if anyone here needed an example. We've all seen this behavior played out 1000 times in real time by now.
The 25% of the Dem voting block that wants to support this man can keep pretending that it isn't a big deal, that he didn't do anything wrong but this is how many in the world sees what his campaign did:
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35144242
And even though it's pretty clear that this lawsuit is hurting the Democrats, and Sanders most of all, you guys still somehow believe that the DNC "caved" to him for... reasons. This is what non-hysterically partisan observers are reading and understanding:
"The Sanders campaign has now complied with the DNC's request to provide the information that we have requested of them. Based on this information, we are restoring the Sanders campaign's access to the voter file, but will continue to investigate to ensure that the data that was inappropriately accessed has been deleted and is no longer in possession of the Sanders campaign," DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/460361192/dnc-restores-sanders-campaigns-access-to-voter-files-after-data-breach
I don't know why you felt the compelling urge to leap in and do exactly what I said that Sanders supporters have been doing but I guess, thanks anyway. This entire fiasco has hurt him and like I said it is the almost CEMENT like levels of denial from his supporters that have kept this foolishness going. In the echo chamber that is DU, this idiocy is viewed as some principled, valiant effort but it doesn't play out that way in too many other places.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."and you are still here screaming that "technically they didn't do anything wrong""...
so I guess you missed this from my post:
we do not know whether the Sanders staffers looked in order to document the defect, or whether they really were trying to snag some useful information from the Clinton data they looked at.
and then you give away your game by adding "and whatever that mess was about contracts" -- which made me laugh out loud. Yes, you keep telling yourself that the terms of the contract had nothing to do with DWS' capitulation, and have nothing to do with this story. Keep whistling...
Giving the DNC version is fine. But since they are one of the parties to the dispute, we can only assume they will present a version that makes them look good. Similarly to what you assume about the Sanders campaign's version of events. So pardon me if I don't take the DNC version of events as gospel. I don't expect you to take the Sanders campaign's version as gospel either. That is why we do need a full and fair investigation, from day one.
I will add, there are some real questions about the level of stewardship of the data provided by the DNC's software vendor. If the original story they put out there is true -- that they were installing a patch while the system was running -- IF it is true, that would be a real amateur hour type operation.
Number23
(24,544 posts)People don't get access to their own data suspended for doing nothing wrong.
If you want to keep singing your "well TECHNICALLY" song do it with someone who's interested and who has an equally tenuous grasp of what's actually happened.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...even if their intentions were pure as the driven snow, they used awful judgment and viewing the data was wrong, as Sanders indicated. And yes, that is why they were fired: they did something wrong.
HOWEVER, that is NOT the whole story here. That is your problem: you think it begins and ends there. But L'il Debbie stepped in it by breaching the contract terms AND going public with the whole thing. Oops.
I hate to break it to you, but it is not the Sanders campaign who ended up looking bad.
Well enough for now. You have a nice evening. TTFN
Number23
(24,544 posts)nationally and internationally make him and his campaign look like thieves in the night. Worse, thieves with shrill, unhinged campaign managers shrieking at the media and actually FUNDRAISING over the unethical and maybe even illegal things that they've done.
So again, if you can look at all of that and conclude "but it is not the Sanders campaign who ended up looking bad." then I just want to thank you AGAIN for demonstrating exactly the type of bizarre, divorced from reality behavior from far too many Sanders supporters which I already said has played such a pivotal role in keeping this supremely sorry situation going.
Ta Ta.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)He just knows what his staffers tell him - the very same staffers who are too busy covering their ass to serve their candidate.
Bernie's gonna lose. He's gonna lose very, very badly. Sad thing really, because Bernie has a lot to say that people need to hear.