DNC software breach gave Sanders campaign confidential Clinton Data

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Searching by data in VAN produces the results of that search -- in other words, it's viewing the data.

Those logs are completely consistent with intentionally accessing and saving the data.

Nothing was downloaded nor exported.

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

[Alcon]

Searching by data in VAN produces the results of that search -- in other words, it's viewing the data.

Those logs are completely consistent with intentionally accessing and saving the data.

Nothing was downloaded nor exported.

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

All right, so we have NGP VAN's official statements, and these logs.  I'm not sure what the origin of the logs is (it seems to be a narrative adaptation of the raw logs), but do you not agree that they're inconsistent with the description NGP has given?  I imagine you've probably seen VAN?  Creating a folder, running a search, and then saving the results of that search into the folder does effectively save that data.  Even if that was not done successfully, what else could these logs possibly mean, besides an attempt to save that data?

If there's an answer to that, I'm open to it, but my experience with VAN doesn't suggest any other explanation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Searching by data in VAN produces the results of that search -- in other words, it's viewing the data.

Those logs are completely consistent with intentionally accessing and saving the data.

Nothing was downloaded nor exported.

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

All right, so we have NGP VAN's official statements, and these logs.  I'm not sure what the origin of the logs is (it seems to be a narrative adaptation of the raw logs), but do you not agree that they're inconsistent with the description NGP is given?  I imagine you've probably seen VAN?  Creating a folder, running a search, and then saving the results of that search into the folder does effectively save that data.  Even if that was not done successfully, what else could these logs possibly mean, besides an attempt to save that data?

If there's an answer to that, I'm open to it, but my experience with VAN doesn't suggest any other explanation.

Well, I don't know anything about the system, but it seemed like they were just collecting files in one folder so that they could say how serious the bug was. But who knows. Either way, the guy got fired.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

The hilldogs on here are pretty horrible...if you like the status quo with all the corrupt politicians go for Hillary.

[Alcon]

Searching by data in VAN produces the results of that search -- in other words, it's viewing the data.

Those logs are completely consistent with intentionally accessing and saving the data.

Nothing was downloaded nor exported.

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

All right, so we have NGP VAN's official statements, and these logs.  I'm not sure what the origin of the logs is (it seems to be a narrative adaptation of the raw logs), but do you not agree that they're inconsistent with the description NGP is given?  I imagine you've probably seen VAN?  Creating a folder, running a search, and then saving the results of that search into the folder does effectively save that data.  Even if that was not done successfully, what else could these logs possibly mean, besides an attempt to save that data?

If there's an answer to that, I'm open to it, but my experience with VAN doesn't suggest any other explanation.

Well, I don't know anything about the system, but it seemed like they were just collecting files in one folder so that they could say how serious the bug was. But who knows. Either way, the guy got fired.

That excuse makes very little sense to me.  If the data can't be exported, and demonstrating the bug would require accessing their account either way, why would they need to save the files separately?  It also wouldn't require spending two hours saving stuff.

I agree this doesn't reflect on Sanders at all -- this would be a hard temptation for zealous campaign workers to avoid, and obviously this has nothing to do with Sanders himself -- but these logs do paint a more damning picture of the staffers' choices than the Snopes summary.

[Adam Griffin]

Searching by data in VAN produces the results of that search -- in other words, it's viewing the data.

Those logs are completely consistent with intentionally accessing and saving the data.

Nothing was downloaded nor exported.

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

All right, so we have NGP VAN's official statements, and these logs.  I'm not sure what the origin of the logs is (it seems to be a narrative adaptation of the raw logs), but do you not agree that they're inconsistent with the description NGP is given?  I imagine you've probably seen VAN?  Creating a folder, running a search, and then saving the results of that search into the folder does effectively save that data.  Even if that was not done successfully, what else could these logs possibly mean, besides an attempt to save that data?

If there's an answer to that, I'm open to it, but my experience with VAN doesn't suggest any other explanation.

You and I seem to be two of only a few people in this entire thread who have had prolonged and consistent experience with VoteBuilder/VAN. I have been defending Sanders in here since this morning (including before any of these logs released). My defense went from one of "merely assessing the extent of the leak so it can be properly reported is not nefarious or deserving of this treatment" to one of "the DNC is completely overreacting, showing bias, and being ran by, well, see my sig".

It's clear based not just on the logs themselves but specifically which lists were accessed and saved (along with the creation of additional accounts and sharing of privileges) that the data admin was proactively siphoning the data off for campaign benefit.

[Joe Republic]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 16 pages in.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

[Alcon]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

This is no reason to ban access to the politicians own data....the DNC has gone too far and knows it has.

[Joe Republic]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

The problem with answering your question is that the Sanders folk have spent most of this thread claiming that the Sanders campaign has done absolutely nothing wrong.

[Alcon]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

This is no way to ban access to the politicians own data....the DNC has gone too far and knows it has.

What do you mean?  The VAN is a platform that provides publicly-accessible data and proprietary party data, allows you to add in your own proprietary data, and then lets you use all those data sets for analysis and voter mobilization.  Are you arguing that the VAN is obligated to allow the Sanders campaign access to the data it has stored on their platform, even if they have broken the terms of service for that platform?

If they stored it on the VAN, and didn't back it up, there certainly is a way to "ban" access to a politicians' own data.  That appears to be part of why the Sanders campaign is so upset (although the platform's ubiquity and features are obviously also important).

I agree that it's rather punitive to deny access to the platform because some staffers abused their discretion, but you have to enforce agreements somehow or they're meaningless and there's no disincentive to do stuff like this.  Also, again, even if the DNC's reaction was excessive, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a major abuse of discretion on the Sanders staffers' part.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

The problem with answering your question is that the Sanders folk have spent most of this thread claiming that the Sanders campaign has done absolutely nothing wrong.

One person did something wrong and was fired for that, no problem...it became an issue when DWS put out her outrageous comment towards the Sanders campaign and showed her true colors.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

The problem with answering your question is that the Sanders folk have spent most of this thread claiming that the Sanders campaign has done absolutely nothing wrong.

It doesn't really matter, the guy was immediately fired. The DNC showed their favortism to Bernie by locking him out until his lawsuit made them heel.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

This is no way to ban access to the politicians own data....the DNC has gone too far and knows it has.

What do you mean?  The VAN is a platform that provides publicly-accessible data and proprietary party data, allows you to add in your own proprietary data, and then lets you use all those data sets for analysis and voter mobilization.  Are you arguing that the VAN is obligated to allow the Sanders campaign access to the data it has stored on their platform, even if they have broken the terms of service for that platform?

If they stored it on the VAN, and didn't back it up, there certainly is a way to "ban" access to a politicians' own data.  That appears to be part of why the Sanders campaign is so upset (although the platform's ubiquity and features are obviously also important).

I agree that it's rather punitive to deny access to the platform because some staffers abused their discretion, but you have to enforce agreements somehow or they're meaningless and there's no disincentive to do stuff like this.  Also, again, even if the DNC's reaction was excessive, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a major abuse of discretion on the Sanders staffers' part.

The contract said it couldn't be ended without a 10 day notice, and it doesn't say anything about accessing other data anyways. And the Hillary campaign in 2008 had access to other campaign's data. This was about the DNC punishing Bernie for daring to run against the chosen one. They really overstepped until the very real threat of discovery from a federal lawsuit made them heel.

[Alcon]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

The problem with answering your question is that the Sanders folk have spent most of this thread claiming that the Sanders campaign has done absolutely nothing wrong.

One person did something wrong and was fired for that, no problem...it became an issue when DWS put out her outrageous comment towards the Sanders campaign and showed her true colors.

I've now heard claims that four usernames were involved, so why were we thinking it's only one guy?

Look, even if you think that the DNC is being punitive here (totally possible), I'll repeat my question: how else do you enforce terms of agreement for access to a data platform, besides revoking that access and/or publicly embarrassing those responsible?

Putting aside that the DNC may have have it out for Sanders (totally true), this isn't far from how you'd expect a bureaucracy to respond when: 1) someone has compromised the integrity of the most valuable asset they have as an organization; and, 2) they have no other leverage besides talking that asset away and calling out the person who compromised it.

What about that do you disagree with?

[HAnnA MArin County]

Oh this is peanuts compared to Hillary's war vote, and that's what we really should be discussing. She'll bomb more countries than Bernie will ever bomb computers and databases.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

The problem with answering your question is that the Sanders folk have spent most of this thread claiming that the Sanders campaign has done absolutely nothing wrong.

One person did something wrong and was fired for that, no problem...it became an issue when DWS put out her outrageous comment towards the Sanders campaign and showed her true colors.

I've now heard claims that four usernames were involved, so why were we thinking it's only one guy?

Look, even if you think that the DNC is being punitive here (totally possible), I'll repeat my question: how else do you enforce terms of agreement for access to a data platform, besides revoking that access and/or publicly embarrassing those responsible?

Putting aside that the DNC may have have it out for Sanders (totally true), this isn't far from how you'd expect a bureaucracy to respond when: 1) someone has compromised the integrity of the most valuable asset they have as an organization; and, 2) they have no other leverage besides talking that asset away and calling out the person who compromised it.

What about that do you disagree with?

There was one guy with 3 accounts. I'm guessing the other guy didn't really do anything. The contract said they can give a 10 day notice to terminate, and other other party is allowed to remedy the situation in those 10 days,  but that's not what the DNC did.

[Alcon]

The contract said it couldn't be ended without a 10 day notice, and it doesn't say anything about accessing other data anyways.

Can you link me to the full contract?  It's apparently different than the VAN contract I have, which doesn't contain this clause but definitely does contain a clause about access to third-party data.  The version of the Sanders complaint I've seen does not have the contract as an appendix.

And the Hillary campaign in 2008 had access to other campaign's data. This was about the DNC punishing Bernie for daring to run against the chosen one. They really overstepped until the very real threat of discovery from a federal lawsuit made them heel.

OK, that may be true.  The DNC may be hacks and terrible people.  That is a separate issue from the substantive claims about what happened here, and what the reasonable reaction to it is.  If you get arrested for shoplifting and get off because your daddy is the sheriff, my reaction isn't going to be, "well, for consistency, we should never arrest someone for shoplifting again."  It's going to be "well, letting him off was unethical and stupid -- let's make sure that never happens again."

Pointing out the hypocrisy here does not invalidate the questions I'm asking, which no one has bothered to answer so far.

There was one guy with 3 accounts. I'm guessing the other guy didn't really do anything. The contract said they can give a 10 day notice to terminate, and other other party is allowed to remedy the situation in those 10 days,  but that's not what the DNC did.

OK, that may be -- but based on your apparent unfamiliarity with what these logs mean, I'm not sure how you've concluded that.

Again, where are you seeing the contract, or are you relying on the quoted portions from the Sanders complaint?

Oh this is peanuts compared to Hillary's war vote, and that's what we really should be discussing. She'll bomb more countries than Bernie will ever bomb computers and databases.

Similarly, "the shopkeep once stabbed a guy" does not mean we can't and shouldn't prosecute someone for shoplifting at his store.  It's not like it's a zero-sum game between this Sanders story and Clinton's war vote.  If this story weren't a thing, the media wouldn't suddenly start bringing up a years-old vote as a news narrative.  Maybe it would be better if the media worked that way, but it doesn't, so that seems like an ineffectual complaint.  We all wish horserace coverage was less dumb -- but, until that ideal world conjures itself, we might as well be thoughtful about the dumb, episodic crap people prefer to focus on.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The contract said it couldn't be ended without a 10 day notice, and it doesn't say anything about accessing other data anyways.

Can you link me to the full contract?  It's apparently different than the VAN contract I have, which doesn't contain this clause but definitely does contain a clause about access to third-party data.  The version of the Sanders complaint I've seen does not have this as an appendix.

And the Hillary campaign in 2008 had access to other campaign's data. This was about the DNC punishing Bernie for daring to run against the chosen one. They really overstepped until the very real threat of discovery from a federal lawsuit made them heel.

OK, that may be true.  The DNC may be hacks and terrible people.  That is a separate issue from the substantive claims about what happened here, and what the reasonable reaction to it is.  If you get arrested for shoplifting and get off because your daddy is the sheriff, my reaction isn't going to be, "well, for consistency, we should never arrest someone for shoplifting before."  It's going to be "well, that's unethical and stupid -- let's make sure that never happens again."

Pointing out the hypocrisy here does not invalidate the questions I'm asking, which no one has bothered to answer so far.

The contract is in the lawsuit. Also note discussion of a prior incident involving the Hillary campaign that had no discipline.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000151-b72f-d1ae-add5-f76f14db0001

The staffer was immediately fired and they said his behavior was unacceptable.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Well, I don't know anything about the system

Clearly.  And yet here we are, 15 pages in.

Because Hillary and the DNC made a bad political move and then caved in.

There are really two separate discussions here -- what transpired, and what a reasonable reaction to it is -- and while the latter question is possibly affected by the former question, the former question certainly isn't affected by the latter.  You don't think it's reasonable to discuss how the campaign staffers behaved, and whether it makes sense to punish campaigns for abuses of discretion by high-level staffers?

The problem with answering your question is that the Sanders folk have spent most of this thread claiming that the Sanders campaign has done absolutely nothing wrong.

One person did something wrong and was fired for that, no problem...it became an issue when DWS put out her outrageous comment towards the Sanders campaign and showed her true colors.

I've now heard claims that four usernames were involved, so why were we thinking it's only one guy?

Look, even if you think that the DNC is being punitive here (totally possible), I'll repeat my question: how else do you enforce terms of agreement for access to a data platform, besides revoking that access and/or publicly embarrassing those responsible?

Putting aside that the DNC may have have it out for Sanders (totally true), this isn't far from how you'd expect a bureaucracy to respond when: 1) someone has compromised the integrity of the most valuable asset they have as an organization; and, 2) they have no other leverage besides talking that asset away and calling out the person who compromised it.

What about that do you disagree with?

I agree with if you thought there was a breach you would suspend both campaigns access but they only did Sanders so it shows the democratic voters how bias the chair is (Recently with the debates/forums on weekends and Fridays) and they are playing with fire...this debate on Saturday is now very important and could be pivotal.

[Joe Republic]

"The staffer" = Sanders campaign National Data Director.  This part keeps getting deliberately forgotten.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I agree with if you thought there was a breach you would suspend both campaigns access but they only did Sanders so it shows the democratic voters how bias the chair is (Recently with the debates/forums on weekends and Fridays) and they are playing with fire...this debate on Saturday is now very important and could be pivotal.

It was clearly a punishment. But the chosen one didn't get punished for the same thing.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

"The staffer" = Sanders campaign National Data Director.  This part keeps getting deliberately forgotten.

He got fired so what point are you even making?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"The staffer" = Sanders campaign National Data Director.  This part keeps getting deliberately forgotten.

He got fired so what point are you even making?

Hillary supporters just like making excuses for the DNC pulling sh**t with Bernie. They must be sad that Bernie's lawsuit made the DNC heel. Hopefully it continues and exposes what a terrible organization the DNC is. After all they lost access for a least a day (someone said 2) and they're seeking $600k in damages per day.