DNC software breach gave Sanders campaign confidential Clinton Data

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Based on what has been written the poor staffer was accessing the Sanders campaign data when he suddenly had access to the Clinton campaign data. The staffer then contacted the vendor to tell them there was an error. For his good work in reporting the error which was in no way their fault they got fired. Seems rather unfair, especially if this is an ongoing issue with the data and its access.

There might be more to it like evidence that the staffer saved all of the data before reporting its access, or maybe the staffer was deliberately trying to access Clinton campaign data and managed too on this occasion.

And I am not sure it is possible to prove you have deleted data completely.

No good deed goes unpunished. And it's awfully convenient that the campaign that reported the problem gets punished while the DNC's chosen candidate still has access, and likely could have accessed Bernie's files, but never reported it.

The DNC has done enough sh**t to Bernie, he needs to start threatening to run as an independent if they don't treat him with some minimal respect.

You're getting flustered over something that you made up in your mind. You don't know whether the Clinton campaign accessed Sanders' data so don't get all worked up thinking about the possibility that they might have. It makes you seem childish.

Besides, I doubt the Sanders campaign has anything that Obama's database and the info that his former campaign staff didn't already have access to anyway.

What is childish is how every Hillary supporter is trying to use this against Bernie when his campaign reported the problem months ago and nothing was done. And why is he locked out for reporting the problem while the Hillary campaign still has access? The DNC needs to stop playing dirty tricks for the chosen one. The DNC has really managed to lower my opinion of them quite a bit, and I didn't think that would be possible.

This is what Sanders gets for refusing to denounce his disgusting cult followers. That's major karma right there.

Hillary has no shortage of those.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton has always had the establishment in her back pocket.

Well, to be fair she has the advantage of being a Democrat, unlike Sanders.

Sanders has caucused with the Democrats and is running in the Democratic primary...I doubt that is the reason.

I don't know why Hillary hacks keep bringing that up when even Bill Gardner decided that Bernie is a Democrat.

[Craigo]

I'm mostly in the "who cares?" camp on this, based on what's printed.  I also except this will be a flash-in-the-pan story.

I use VAN for work, and I know exactly how this sort of thing can happen.  I think some of you are being unrealistic about blaming a campaign for "accessing data."  Democrats use a common interface.  In this case, what probably happened was that Clinton's voter IDs were accidentally shared as public data, instead of Clinton-private data.  Someone at the Sanders campaign probably noticed this data, accessed it out of "wtf is this?" curiosity or whatever and, once accessing it, realized that the data was way too extensive to be anything but the Clinton database.  If they then went on to report it,  Why are you all being so adamant that "accessing the information" was nefarious or "cheating" here?  If he downloaded and stored the data that's one thing.  If he merely opened the file to check what it was, and got fired for that, he got thrown under the bus.

Does anyone here disagree, understanding how VAN works?

Yes, I disagree. (I've used VAN and other databases for past political work, though before it merged with NGP, and I now manage legal databses.) They didn't self-report, they got caught. And the Sanders campaign agrees with me, because they just fired Uretsky.

[Holmes]

Based on what has been written the poor staffer was accessing the Sanders campaign data when he suddenly had access to the Clinton campaign data. The staffer then contacted the vendor to tell them there was an error. For his good work in reporting the error which was in no way their fault they got fired. Seems rather unfair, especially if this is an ongoing issue with the data and its access.

There might be more to it like evidence that the staffer saved all of the data before reporting its access, or maybe the staffer was deliberately trying to access Clinton campaign data and managed too on this occasion.

And I am not sure it is possible to prove you have deleted data completely.

No good deed goes unpunished. And it's awfully convenient that the campaign that reported the problem gets punished while the DNC's chosen candidate still has access, and likely could have accessed Bernie's files, but never reported it.

The DNC has done enough sh**t to Bernie, he needs to start threatening to run as an independent if they don't treat him with some minimal respect.

You're getting flustered over something that you made up in your mind. You don't know whether the Clinton campaign accessed Sanders' data so don't get all worked up thinking about the possibility that they might have. It makes you seem childish.

Clinton has always had the establishment in her back pocket. They know Sanders is no good news for them even though he has just reached 2 million in single donations which is beating Obama's record...but shhhh hes a socialist shhh...

Nothing in this post is pertinent to what I just said or anything else in this thread.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm mostly in the "who cares?" camp on this, based on what's printed.  I also except this will be a flash-in-the-pan story.

I use VAN for work, and I know exactly how this sort of thing can happen.  I think some of you are being unrealistic about blaming a campaign for "accessing data."  Democrats use a common interface.  In this case, what probably happened was that Clinton's voter IDs were accidentally shared as public data, instead of Clinton-private data.  Someone at the Sanders campaign probably noticed this data, accessed it out of "wtf is this?" curiosity or whatever and, once accessing it, realized that the data was way too extensive to be anything but the Clinton database.  If they then went on to report it,  Why are you all being so adamant that "accessing the information" was nefarious or "cheating" here?  If he downloaded and stored the data that's one thing.  If he merely opened the file to check what it was, and got fired for that, he got thrown under the bus.

Does anyone here disagree, understanding how VAN works?

Yes, I disagree. (I've used VAN and other databases for past political work, though before it merged with NGP, and I now manage legal databses.) They didn't self-report, they got caught. And the Sanders campaign agrees with me, because they just fired Uretsky.

True, I doubt the people knew what they were accessing until they accessed it. And the Bernie campaign reported that this was a problem months ago.

[Holmes]

Based on what has been written the poor staffer was accessing the Sanders campaign data when he suddenly had access to the Clinton campaign data. The staffer then contacted the vendor to tell them there was an error. For his good work in reporting the error which was in no way their fault they got fired. Seems rather unfair, especially if this is an ongoing issue with the data and its access.

There might be more to it like evidence that the staffer saved all of the data before reporting its access, or maybe the staffer was deliberately trying to access Clinton campaign data and managed too on this occasion.

And I am not sure it is possible to prove you have deleted data completely.

No good deed goes unpunished. And it's awfully convenient that the campaign that reported the problem gets punished while the DNC's chosen candidate still has access, and likely could have accessed Bernie's files, but never reported it.

The DNC has done enough sh**t to Bernie, he needs to start threatening to run as an independent if they don't treat him with some minimal respect.

You're getting flustered over something that you made up in your mind. You don't know whether the Clinton campaign accessed Sanders' data so don't get all worked up thinking about the possibility that they might have. It makes you seem childish.

Clinton has always had the establishment in her back pocket. They know Sanders is no good news for them even though he has just reached 2 million in single donations which is beating Obama's record...but shhhh hes a socialist shhh...

Nothing in this post is pertinent to what I just said or anything else in this thread.

[TarHeelDem]

It doesn't really matter much, since Bernie Sanders is not going to win the nomination anyway.

[Craigo]

I'm mostly in the "who cares?" camp on this, based on what's printed.  I also except this will be a flash-in-the-pan story.

I use VAN for work, and I know exactly how this sort of thing can happen.  I think some of you are being unrealistic about blaming a campaign for "accessing data."  Democrats use a common interface.  In this case, what probably happened was that Clinton's voter IDs were accidentally shared as public data, instead of Clinton-private data.  Someone at the Sanders campaign probably noticed this data, accessed it out of "wtf is this?" curiosity or whatever and, once accessing it, realized that the data was way too extensive to be anything but the Clinton database.  If they then went on to report it,  Why are you all being so adamant that "accessing the information" was nefarious or "cheating" here?  If he downloaded and stored the data that's one thing.  If he merely opened the file to check what it was, and got fired for that, he got thrown under the bus.

Does anyone here disagree, understanding how VAN works?

Yes, I disagree. (I've used VAN and other databases for past political work, though before it merged with NGP, and I now manage legal databses.) They didn't self-report, they got caught. And the Sanders campaign agrees with me, because they just fired Uretsky.

True, I doubt the people knew what they were accessing until they accessed it. And the Bernie campaign reported that this was a problem months ago.

No, bullsh**t. You have to deliberately choose what list to view in VAN. If you access someone else's list, it's because you wanted to access it. This is incredibly scumbaggy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm mostly in the "who cares?" camp on this, based on what's printed.  I also except this will be a flash-in-the-pan story.

I use VAN for work, and I know exactly how this sort of thing can happen.  I think some of you are being unrealistic about blaming a campaign for "accessing data."  Democrats use a common interface.  In this case, what probably happened was that Clinton's voter IDs were accidentally shared as public data, instead of Clinton-private data.  Someone at the Sanders campaign probably noticed this data, accessed it out of "wtf is this?" curiosity or whatever and, once accessing it, realized that the data was way too extensive to be anything but the Clinton database.  If they then went on to report it,  Why are you all being so adamant that "accessing the information" was nefarious or "cheating" here?  If he downloaded and stored the data that's one thing.  If he merely opened the file to check what it was, and got fired for that, he got thrown under the bus.

Does anyone here disagree, understanding how VAN works?

Yes, I disagree. (I've used VAN and other databases for past political work, though before it merged with NGP, and I now manage legal databses.) They didn't self-report, they got caught. And the Sanders campaign agrees with me, because they just fired Uretsky.

True, I doubt the people knew what they were accessing until they accessed it. And the Bernie campaign reported that this was a problem months ago.

No, bullsh**t. You have to deliberately choose what list to view in VAN. If you access someone else's list, it's because you wanted to access it. This is incredibly scumbaggy.

The vendor says the access was inadvertent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/18/sanders-campaign-disciplined-for-breaching-clinton-data/?smid=nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Of course they should probably get a better vendor, since the Bernie campaign reported this bug months ago. Maybe a firm whose CEO wasn't Hillary's CTO?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Based on what has been written the poor staffer was accessing the Sanders campaign data when he suddenly had access to the Clinton campaign data. The staffer then contacted the vendor to tell them there was an error. For his good work in reporting the error which was in no way their fault they got fired. Seems rather unfair, especially if this is an ongoing issue with the data and its access.

There might be more to it like evidence that the staffer saved all of the data before reporting its access, or maybe the staffer was deliberately trying to access Clinton campaign data and managed too on this occasion.

And I am not sure it is possible to prove you have deleted data completely.

No good deed goes unpunished. And it's awfully convenient that the campaign that reported the problem gets punished while the DNC's chosen candidate still has access, and likely could have accessed Bernie's files, but never reported it.

The DNC has done enough sh**t to Bernie, he needs to start threatening to run as an independent if they don't treat him with some minimal respect.

You're getting flustered over something that you made up in your mind. You don't know whether the Clinton campaign accessed Sanders' data so don't get all worked up thinking about the possibility that they might have. It makes you seem childish.

Clinton has always had the establishment in her back pocket. They know Sanders is no good news for them even though he has just reached 2 million in single donations which is beating Obama's record...but shhhh hes a socialist shhh...

Nothing in this post is pertinent to what I just said or anything else in this thread.

Jfern makes a good point...I doubt the DNC would be so hasty to punish the Clinton camp for the same story.

It doesn't really matter much, since Bernie Sanders is not going to win the nomination anyway.

Obvious hack is obvious.

[Craigo]

I'm mostly in the "who cares?" camp on this, based on what's printed.  I also except this will be a flash-in-the-pan story.

I use VAN for work, and I know exactly how this sort of thing can happen.  I think some of you are being unrealistic about blaming a campaign for "accessing data."  Democrats use a common interface.  In this case, what probably happened was that Clinton's voter IDs were accidentally shared as public data, instead of Clinton-private data.  Someone at the Sanders campaign probably noticed this data, accessed it out of "wtf is this?" curiosity or whatever and, once accessing it, realized that the data was way too extensive to be anything but the Clinton database.  If they then went on to report it,  Why are you all being so adamant that "accessing the information" was nefarious or "cheating" here?  If he downloaded and stored the data that's one thing.  If he merely opened the file to check what it was, and got fired for that, he got thrown under the bus.

Does anyone here disagree, understanding how VAN works?

Yes, I disagree. (I've used VAN and other databases for past political work, though before it merged with NGP, and I now manage legal databses.) They didn't self-report, they got caught. And the Sanders campaign agrees with me, because they just fired Uretsky.

True, I doubt the people knew what they were accessing until they accessed it. And the Bernie campaign reported that this was a problem months ago.

No, bullsh**t. You have to deliberately choose what list to view in VAN. If you access someone else's list, it's because you wanted to access it. This is incredibly scumbaggy.

The vendor says the access was inadvertent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/18/sanders-campaign-disciplined-for-breaching-clinton-data/?smid=nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Of course they should probably get a better vendor, since the Bernie campaign reported this bug months ago. Maybe a firm whose CEO wasn't Hillary's CTO?

No, the vendor is saying that dropping the safeguards was inadvertent, i.e., they didn't deliberately give access to the Sanders campaign. If you believe that the Sanders staffer 1) Knew of a security vulnerability in VAN and 2) Just happened to exploit it "inadvertently" during the tiny window of opportunity...

And again - the Sanders campaign does not agree with you, at all. "Inappropriate" =/= "inadvertent".

But about NPG VAN - yeah, you're right. The platforms I use now have so many layers of security that it's almost literally impossible for us to allow a user into someone else's data. VAN is very bare-bones.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm mostly in the "who cares?" camp on this, based on what's printed.  I also except this will be a flash-in-the-pan story.

I use VAN for work, and I know exactly how this sort of thing can happen.  I think some of you are being unrealistic about blaming a campaign for "accessing data."  Democrats use a common interface.  In this case, what probably happened was that Clinton's voter IDs were accidentally shared as public data, instead of Clinton-private data.  Someone at the Sanders campaign probably noticed this data, accessed it out of "wtf is this?" curiosity or whatever and, once accessing it, realized that the data was way too extensive to be anything but the Clinton database.  If they then went on to report it,  Why are you all being so adamant that "accessing the information" was nefarious or "cheating" here?  If he downloaded and stored the data that's one thing.  If he merely opened the file to check what it was, and got fired for that, he got thrown under the bus.

Does anyone here disagree, understanding how VAN works?

Yes, I disagree. (I've used VAN and other databases for past political work, though before it merged with NGP, and I now manage legal databses.) They didn't self-report, they got caught. And the Sanders campaign agrees with me, because they just fired Uretsky.

True, I doubt the people knew what they were accessing until they accessed it. And the Bernie campaign reported that this was a problem months ago.

No, bullsh**t. You have to deliberately choose what list to view in VAN. If you access someone else's list, it's because you wanted to access it. This is incredibly scumbaggy.

The vendor says the access was inadvertent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/18/sanders-campaign-disciplined-for-breaching-clinton-data/?smid=nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Of course they should probably get a better vendor, since the Bernie campaign reported this bug months ago. Maybe a firm whose CEO wasn't Hillary's CTO?

No, the vendor is saying that dropping the safeguards was inadvertent, i.e., they didn't deliberately give access to the Sanders campaign. If you believe that the Sanders staffer 1) Knew of a security vulnerability in VAN and 2) Just happened to exploit it "inadvertently" during the tiny window of opportunity...

And again - the Sanders campaign does not agree with you, at all. "Inappropriate" =/= "inadvertent".

But about NPG VAN - yeah, you're right. The platforms I use now have so many layers of security that it's almost literally impossible for us to allow a user into someone else's data. VAN is very bare-bones.

Well, it kind of doesn't matter what the user did, because he was fired. But it's ridiculous that the DNC cut the campaign's access to the data (while keeping Hillary's access) and is making it into a scandal when Bernie's campaign reported in months ago, and the DNC chair and vendor CEO are both Hillary hacks.

[Ebsy]

Yes, obviously, the DNC, in the hope of projecting fairness, will cut off the Clinton campaign from Votebuilder for the duration of the investigation into a Sanders' campaign staffer improperly accessing her campaign data through no fault of her campaign. Yes, that will definitely go over well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, obviously, the DNC, in the hope of projecting fairness, will cut off the Clinton campaign from Votebuilder for the duration of the investigation into a Sanders' campaign staffer improperly accessing her campaign data through no fault of her campaign. Yes, that will definitely go over well.

The bug was reported months ago, and there's no evidence that Hillary's campaign didn't access Bernie's files.

[Craigo]

Yes, obviously, the DNC, in the hope of projecting fairness, will cut off the Clinton campaign from Votebuilder for the duration of the investigation into a Sanders' campaign staffer improperly accessing her campaign data through no fault of her campaign. Yes, that will definitely go over well.

The bug was reported months ago, and there's no evidence that Hillary's campaign didn't access Bernie's files.

There's no evidence that they did, but don't let reality stop you.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Also this was a staffer and he was fired so i doubt this will hurt Sanders. (even though DWS will try)

SCANDAL AS WORKER'S ALLY SANDERS FIRES LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE!!

also lmao all round: at the DNC, at jfern furiously spinning, at this "scandal". lol

[Ebsy]

It wasn't a low level staff. He was the National Data Director.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

A motive in search of a conspiracy.

Plus, this is nothing and will mean nothing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also this was a staffer and he was fired so i doubt this will hurt Sanders. (even though DWS will try)

SCANDAL AS WORKER'S ALLY SANDERS FIRES LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE!!

also lmao all round: at the DNC, at jfern furiously spinning, at this "scandal". lol

We wouldn't have heard of this if Bernie's campaign hadn't reported the bug. It's a scandal alright, just not the way some are thinking. It's a scandal that this is being used to take down Bernie, and that they blocked his campaign's access to its own data.

[Ebsy]

Also this was a staffer and he was fired so i doubt this will hurt Sanders. (even though DWS will try)

SCANDAL AS WORKER'S ALLY SANDERS FIRES LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE!!

also lmao all round: at the DNC, at jfern furiously spinning, at this "scandal". lol

We wouldn't have heard of this if Bernie's campaign hadn't reported the bug. It's a scandal alright, just not the way some are thinking. It's a scandal that this is being used to take down Bernie, and that they blocked his campaign's access to its own data.

They blocked his campaign's access to the DNC owned and cultivated VIN system that the campaigns purchase the rights to access. It isn't his data, he's merely renting it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also this was a staffer and he was fired so i doubt this will hurt Sanders. (even though DWS will try)

SCANDAL AS WORKER'S ALLY SANDERS FIRES LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE!!

also lmao all round: at the DNC, at jfern furiously spinning, at this "scandal". lol

We wouldn't have heard of this if Bernie's campaign hadn't reported the bug. It's a scandal alright, just not the way some are thinking. It's a scandal that this is being used to take down Bernie, and that they blocked his campaign's access to its own data.

They blocked his campaign's access to the DNC owned and cultivated VIN system that the campaigns purchase the rights to access. It isn't his data, he's merely renting it.

You might want to rethink that one. If the only data on the system was DNC owned then that kind of kills this whole story.

[Ebsy]

Also this was a staffer and he was fired so i doubt this will hurt Sanders. (even though DWS will try)

SCANDAL AS WORKER'S ALLY SANDERS FIRES LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE!!

also lmao all round: at the DNC, at jfern furiously spinning, at this "scandal". lol

We wouldn't have heard of this if Bernie's campaign hadn't reported the bug. It's a scandal alright, just not the way some are thinking. It's a scandal that this is being used to take down Bernie, and that they blocked his campaign's access to its own data.

They blocked his campaign's access to the DNC owned and cultivated VIN system that the campaigns purchase the rights to access. It isn't his data, he's merely renting it.

You might want to rethink that one. If the only data on the system was DNC owned then that kind of kills this whole story.

Candidates add their own data to the system, and they retain ownership of that, but the valuable part is the DNC data. I've used the system before in Iowa and it is very, very good and is integral to canvassing and phonebanking efforts.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Also this was a staffer and he was fired so i doubt this will hurt Sanders. (even though DWS will try)

SCANDAL AS WORKER'S ALLY SANDERS FIRES LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE!!

also lmao all round: at the DNC, at jfern furiously spinning, at this "scandal". lol

You dont think DWS is solidily on clintons side? Anywho non news since it was a few month ago.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also this was a staffer and he was fired so i doubt this will hurt Sanders. (even though DWS will try)

SCANDAL AS WORKER'S ALLY SANDERS FIRES LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE!!

also lmao all round: at the DNC, at jfern furiously spinning, at this "scandal". lol

We wouldn't have heard of this if Bernie's campaign hadn't reported the bug. It's a scandal alright, just not the way some are thinking. It's a scandal that this is being used to take down Bernie, and that they blocked his campaign's access to its own data.

They blocked his campaign's access to the DNC owned and cultivated VIN system that the campaigns purchase the rights to access. It isn't his data, he's merely renting it.

You might want to rethink that one. If the only data on the system was DNC owned then that kind of kills this whole story.

Candidates add their own data to the system, and they retain ownership of that, but the valuable part is the DNC data. I've used the system before in Iowa and it is very, very good and is integral to canvassing and phonebanking efforts.

The question is whether they lost access to their own files. It's bad enough that they were suddenly cut off from valuable DNC voter information just 45 days before the Iowa caucuses.

[Ebsy]

The question is whether they lost access to their own files. It's bad enough that they were suddenly cut off from valuable DNC voter information just 45 days before the Iowa caucuses.

Their own data would be useless without the Voter Identification Number that is part of the Votebuilder system.

And you are right, this is very bad for the Sanders campaign, and from the reporting I have seen, it is going to get worse tomorrow.