DNC vs Sanders. Is the DNC right to block Sander's access to DNC voter data?

@Frank Apisa,

It's astonishing that you think a shadowy group of people should force the nominee on the people.

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-breach-controversy/

Excerpt

Another portion of the suit pertained to what was referred to as the "Prior Incident" in the body of the filing. The Sanders campaign's suit held that a similar breach favoring the Clinton campaign in 2008 occurred but did not prompt sanctions for her campaign and constituted persistent data security lapses on the part of the DNC:

Upon information and belief, a similar security incident arose with the NGP VAN software during the 2008 national presidential primaries, resulting in the unintentional transmission of Confidential Information to the campaign of Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton (the "Prior Incident"). Upon information and belief, no action was taken in response to the Prior Incident in 2008, nor was any candidate's access to Voter Data suspended as a result of that Incident. [The DNC] has failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence in ensuring that the security breaches that occurred during the Prior Incident, under Defendant’s supervision, would not recur.

In summation, all parties agree that for a short window of time (spanning between 30 and 45 minutes) on or around 16 December 2015 four staffers for the campaign of Bernie Sanders had access to restricted data hosted by a third-party campaign company. The senior staffer in charge of the other three was fired following disclosure of the breach, that staffer maintained that staff were aware their actions were tracked and sought to create a record of the breach. The DNC immediately moved to suspend Sanders' access to the program, effectively crippling his campaign in the lead up to primaries and inhibiting the campaign's ability to engage in voter outreach. The Sanders campaign filed suit against the DNC; the suit alleged that the DNC failed to provide ten days for the Sanders campaign to rectify the breach as stipulated in an October 2016 contract, and further claimed that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign engaged in a similar transmission of unauthorized data with no sanctions applied. While the controversy was widely reported, little was known about the function of NGP VAN's proprietary software, how it operated, or what the staffers' intent in accessing the data ultimately entailed.

FYI

1 Reply

Quote:

The Breach

According to an audit obtained by Bloomberg, Sanders staffers exploited a temporary glitch in the DNC's voter database on Wednesday to save lists created by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon told reporter there were "24 intrusion attempts" by the Sanders campaign. He and Mook insisted that the Clinton campaign did not take advantage of the bug to look at Sanders' data.

The database logs created by NGP VAN show that four accounts associated with the Sanders team took advantage of the Wednesday morning breach. Staffers conducted searches that would be especially advantageous to the campaign, including lists of its likeliest supporters in 10 early voting states, including Iowa and New Hampshire. Campaigns rent access to a master file of DNC voter information from the party, and update the files with their own data culled from field work and other investments.

After one Sanders account gained access to the Clinton data, the audits show, that user began sharing permissions with other Sanders users. The staffers who secured access to the Clinton data included Uretsky and his deputy, Russell Drapkin. The two other usernames that viewed Clinton information were “talani" and "csmith_bernie," created by Uretsky's account after the breach began.

The logs show that the Vermont senator’s team created at least 24 lists during the 40-minute breach, which started at 10:40 a.m., and saved those lists to their personal folders. The Sanders searches included New Hampshire lists related to likely voters, "HFA Turnout 60-100" and "HFA Support 50-100," that were conducted and saved by Uretsky. Drapkin's account searched for and saved lists including less likely Clinton voters, "HFA Support <30" in Iowa, and "HFA Turnout 30-70"' in New Hampshire.

Despite audit logs, Weaver said at the news conference that NGP VAN has told the campaign that no Clinton data was printed or downloaded.

source

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hello Frank.

"Throwing" the election is a good way to put it. Creating/fostering a mean-spirited, misinformed base who are isolated in an epistemological vacuum served their electoral purposes for a long time. But now that beast created or fostered has the better of them.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

[Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon] and Mook insisted that the Clinton campaign did not take advantage of the bug to look at Sanders' data.

Well. I feel so much better.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

Upon information and belief, a similar security incident arose with the NGP VAN software during the 2008 national presidential primaries, resulting in the unintentional transmission of Confidential Information to the campaign of Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton (the "Prior Incident"). Upon information and belief, no action was taken in response to the Prior Incident in 2008, nor was any candidate's access to Voter Data suspended as a result of that Incident.

I wonder what they mean by "unintentional transmission?" Does that mean the data just showed on the Clinton the files or that the Clinton staff accessed the Obama files during a security lapse?

1 Reply

@Lash,

Well obviously there is a way to find or else we would not know about the Sander's staff breach of Clinton's files. Something about an audit and logs (over my head) on NGP VAN and the way they keep up who access what when.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Yeah. Ask Wasserman Schultz' nephew, the Veep of NGP VAN. I'm sure we'll get the truth from them.

Do you see the handwriting on the wall yet? Do you really believe the smoking gun is still sitting there waiting to be exposed?

0 Replies

@blatham,

Entertaining word play as usual Blatham, but what is your point? I'll readily agree that my use of the word syndicate to the various Clinton related enterprises involved implications, but as a reference to the already evident network of associated parts that each benefit from the success of the others, I believe it is an accurate description. Do you disagree?

I don't think for a moment that my use of the term 'annointed queen' for candidate Hillary was in any way original. Indeed her present state among Democrats makes the term obvious to all. Indeed our pal Frank very earnestly argues here for that status for her almost daily.

As for the rest of the entertaining gorilla dust you're throwing in the air, I believe you are missing (or merely evading) the obvious point of this campaign. The contrast between the "we've got no alternatives, but if we play our cards closely we've got it wired" Democrat strategy and the sometimes chaotic intense competition asmong a diverse crowd of Republicans is quite unusual in Americam politics. That a candidate such as Trump could achieve the prominence he has so far sustained, given the style of his rhetoric is itself both remarkable and telling about an unusual and likely deep seated public unrest and dissatisfaction with things as they have become over the past eight years.

These are indeed unusual times. and I can't recall a previous election in which I felt that my intuition about what will likely unfold was less reliable. That said, it is clear that a very large segment of the population is not happy with the prescriptions of the self-appointed progressives who claim to know what is really good for the rest of us and order our lives accordingly.

Juxtapose that with the complacency of progressives who wish to be judged based on their good intentions as opposed to the debacles they have actually created, and I think you have captured the essence of the current campaign.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

They were in the sources from the snopes article Edgar posted earlier a couple times.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

We'll have to see if Wasserman Schultz' nephew wasn't crafty enough to disappear trace evidence of it or if it is found through Sanders' lawsuit.

Sanders campaigned for insurgent Obama in 2008, so he likely knows what happened from a pretty reputable source...

2 Replies

@Lash,

Sanders forthrightly apologized during the recent debate for the actions of his campaign staff. That was admirable and likely indicative of hte traits that have helped him achieve the remarkable success in this campaign.

Did the Clinton staff exploit the same firewall breach to get Sander's data? Is the DNC somehow shielding ther Clintons? We'll likely never know. That the DNC might want to protect its strongest and most likely candidate is no surprise, and the many connections between the DNC, its IT contractor and Clinton operatives make it easy to visualize. That said the Clinton campaign may have been confident enough not to be concerned.

We have Hillary's word that her campaign is innovent of any wrongdoing, and that ought to be good enough for mere people such as ourselves. We all know the Clintons never lie to the public.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

It's astonishing that you think a shadowy group of people should force the nominee on the people.

What???

Where did that come from?

At no point have I suggested a "shadowy group of people"...nor have I suggested ANYONE force the nominee.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Thanks, didn't see that. The staffers on Obama's team shouldn't have done that, if it is really true, and discipline action should have been taken then as well.

According to the information I left earlier more than just searching and looking at Clinton's files was actually done, in fact the Sanders team seem to be lying. They saved the files in personal folders. (left a link earlier in the day)

Quote:

After one Sanders account gained access to the Clinton data, the audits show, that user began sharing permissions with other Sanders users. The staffers who secured access to the Clinton data included Uretsky and his deputy, Russell Drapkin. The two other usernames that viewed Clinton information were “talani" and "csmith_bernie," created by Uretsky's account after the breach began.

The logs show that the Vermont senator’s team created at least 24 lists during the 40-minute breach, which started at 10:40 a.m., and saved those lists to their personal folders. The Sanders searches included New Hampshire lists related to likely voters, "HFA Turnout 60-100" and "HFA Support 50-100," that were conducted and saved by Uretsky. Drapkin's account searched for and saved lists including less likely Clinton voters, "HFA Support <30" in Iowa, and "HFA Turnout 30-70"' in New Hampshire.

1 Reply

@Lash,

So even if there is no trace left to show the Clinton's did the same as evidence does show Sander's staff did, she is still guilty because everyone knows she lies. Pitiful.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Do you know what a kingmaker is?

You said:

Quote:

Each of the parties WILL be playing kingmakers, Robert, and they can do it without the voting being a sham.

Even kingmakers take popular opinion into account.

My guess is the "kingmakes" of the Democratic Party want Hillary Clinton as the nominee precisely because they think she has the better chance of winning; i.e.; that she will draw the most votes from the people. Their "kingmaking" is the result of NOT taking the voting as a sham.

If they thought for a second that Bernie Sanders would be a better draw...Bernie Sanders is who they would be trying to make "king." But I think they realize this country is simply not ready to vote for a self-styled socialist...even if the majority agree with damn near everything the guy stands for.

MY GUESS: If the conservatives of this country were able to be "kingmakers" for the Democrats right now...they would anoint Bernie Sanders in a micro-second. They would much, much, MUCH rather be running against him than Hillary.

Neither the DNC nor the RNC should pervert the will of the electorate and manipulate the process to select the front runner. Their job is to hear the will of the electorate and THEN use their power to support that choice.

The kingmaker scenario as you describe it is appalling and an affront to democracy.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Thanks, didn't see that. The staffers on Obama's team shouldn't have done that if it is really true and discipline action should have been taken then as well.

Nah, it's clear now that this kind of "breach" simply has no value and after all their own rules disallow this discipline. They should just fix their stupid database.

Seems like the real takeaway is that the DNC should just drop this awful vendor and that each campaign needs to have better IT of their own.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Regardless of the data base needing fixing, according to the information I read earlier, the Sanders did more than just look at the list like they are claiming, they actually saved the list in their own personal file. Why is it impossible for you guy to admit your guy's staff did something wrong and so is not now so squeaky clean? Even if Obama and Hillary did it, even if the machine allowed them to do it, Bernie's staff did it too and plus saved the list on personal files which will help them when they are out campaigning.

Plus, perhaps there was no proof other than accusations from the Obama camp on Hillary looking at Obama's list and that guy now saying they did the same when he was on Obama's staff, in other words, perhaps it didn't show up on the logs like it did in the case of Sanders.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Regardless of the data base needing fixing, according to the information I read earlier, the Sanders did more than just look at the list like they are claiming, they actually saved the list in their own personal file. Why is it impossible for you guy to admit your guy's staff did something wrong and so is not now so squeaky clean?

Take your partisan blinders off:

1) Sanders is not "my guy". I have never once expressed a preference for this candidate.
2) I and everyone in this thread has admitted they did wrong.

As for the dispute about exactly what happened with the data it's hard for me to understand given the proprietary nature of the program and the conflicting claims but I'm not arguing against it so I don't know why you bring this up to me.

Quote:

Even if Obama and Hillary did it, even if the machine allowed them to do it, Bernie's staff did it too and plus saved the list on personal files which will help them when they are out campaigning.

Yes but if others did it and the DNC did not suspend their access it might show a bias in their doing so this time. Either way, their OWN contract, the very one that makes the rules that Sanders broke prohibits them from suspending access to any campaign. This is what I find fishy about this, the data was leaky in previous campaigns, the contract clearly states that this kind of suspension is prohibited and that they'd need to give the Sanders campaign 10 days to respond and then decide to terminate the entire contract or not.

It is very clear that the DNC is also in the wrong here, they are breaking the same rulebook that they are accusing Sanders of, and pointing out past cases where they did not react this way to other clients is important because it could represent an attempt on their part to exert undue influence on the political process.

Quote:

Plus, perhaps there was no proof other than accusations from the Obama camp on Hillary looking at Obama's list and that guy now saying they did the same when he was on Obama's staff, in other words, perhaps it didn't show up on the logs like it did in the case of Sanders.

Perhaps. There are a lot of perhapses like that that I cannot form an informed opinion about.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Do I disagree (with "syndicate" usage)? No, outside of the obvious connotation of criminal (or at least, amoral) enterprise. Would you describe the Bush family circle as a syndicate?

"Anointed" is interesting. I don't recall hearing or seeing that term used to describe a candidate (or office holder) before Limbaugh pushed it as derogation for Obama. There, as here, the connotation is theological - specifically, the notion or implication that the individual described is being regarded or treated as a divine agency and who is more properly understood as something like the opposite of that implication. As to "queen", the gender element is rather difficult to ignore. Did you use it in speaking of or thinking about Sarah Palin? Both these terms, in the manner you use them, imply an inappropriate or undeserving proximity to power.

"Gorilla dust". Goodness, you are getting all urban on me, george. Can I expect to see some future photograph of you spinning on your head in Central Park?

Certainly, there is a sharp contrast between the two parties' candidate slates this election. I would describe those differences rather differently than you, I expect, but that's a bigger conversation (happy to have it if you like).

I'm saddened, if not surprised, to see you still hold the following to be true...

"That a candidate such as Trump could achieve the prominence he has so far sustained, given the style of his rhetoric is itself both remarkable and telling about an unusual and likely deep seated public unrest and dissatisfaction with things as they have become over the past eight years."

Trump's support arises from a very small sliver of the US population. It is, for the most part, the same sliver that held up Sarah Palin as a model of just what America needs to move forward into affluence and liberty and greatness. As to your singling out of the "last eight years" oddly omits the prior eight. This is odd not least in light of Bush's polling of American citizens at the termination of his tenure compared with Obama's polling presently.

I don't know what the hell is going to happen to your party after another WH loss. If Trump is the candidate, the obvious out is "Of course we lost. He wasn't a true conservative". If Cruz is the candidate, that option won't be available but there are others in the wings - "The liberal media ensured Hillary would win" or "Election fraud! And illegal immigrants!"

Neither will get to what's really going on. Your party leaders held an autopsy following the last WH election loss. It was, in some ways, smart and honest. Then everybody, pretty much, promptly proceeded to forget the exercise. There wasn't nearly enough throat-ripping in it.

2 Replies

DNC vs Sanders. Is the DNC right to block Sander's access to DNC voter data?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know