Bernie fan hypocrisy, laid bare once again by datagate.

[DanTex]

This one is very odd. The only people who accessed data improperly were Bernie staffers. And let's please dispense with the silly notion that this was no big deal: for someone who knows what they are doing to have an hour to poke around in a competitor's private data is immensely valuable. Everyone who's done this kind of work understands that.

And yet, Bernie fans insist that this is nothing. OK, so far, just the usual denial.

What's really absurd is that they don't stop there. They're actually outraged about the hypothetical possibility the Clinton may spied on Bernie's data. Which, not only is there not a single shred of evidence for, but is even more ludicrous coupled with their claims that the spying by Bernie's own campaign is inconsequential. I mean, if stealing data is like jaywalking (I've actually seen that analogy made), then why even bother with the conspiracy theories that Clinton did it?

The analogy would be, I get caught walking out my neighbor's home with their TV set, and I say "meh, stealing TVs is no big deal" followed by "my neighbor probably stole my TV! It's an outrage! Thief! Thief!"

[boston bean]

1. some persons lines of logic are about 1 centimeter long.

[lame54]

106. great rip on the OP

[okasha]

110. You misunderstand.

[lame54]

118. you see what I did there...

and you are the misunderstanding one

or may i say irony impaired

[okasha]

108. Millimeter.

[Cha]

2. When bernie's team does it it's no big.. but hypothetically Hillary doing the same they become

excessively outraged.

You just have to laugh.

[Fed up in NJ]

55. What is REALLY the laugh is....

..... the way Hillary fans would leave you to believe is that Bernie himself was the person behind the keyboard so he isn't trustable but Hillary signing the back of all those checks from Wall St and depositing them was in the name of "9/11" and all those that died that day makes her trustable!

[Indydem]

57. Do you think Hillary Clinton signs checks?

You are just as guilty.

Checks went to the Clinton foundation, that has accountants to deal with that.

Nice try. I give you an F for hyperbole and hypocrisy.

[Fed up in NJ]

87. Really?

Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees. That is 2013 ALONE!!!! Not to mention the other years speaking fees and the millions Wall Street has donated to her campaign and yes, the Clinton Foundation. But you defending her status as being in Wall Streets pocket proves my case even further... thanks.

[Indydem]

94. You don't even get it.

From your post:
"leave you to believe is that Bernie himself was the person behind the keyboard"

We understand Bernie doesn't do the data management. The guy probably doesn't use a computer that much at all. He's a little busy.

My point was that you think Clinton is the one "signing the back of all those checks" - which is just as ludicrous. She has people for that, just like Bernie has people doing his data management.

Why is it that you Bernie folks simply can't follow a line of questioning, and every single thing turns into "Hillary is a corporatist, blah blah blah, spittle"?

[Fed up in NJ]

95. Seriously?

The point is calling Bernie crooked or untrustable for what his staff did is a frigging joke especially from those who claim Hillary is not in wall streets pocket. When "signing the backs of those checks" it is a slang term for accepting all that friggin money. Actually its most likely transferred to her account. Doesn't change the fact that she is disingenuous to accept all that money and claim 9/11 for doing so. Done with this conversation as most Hillary fans will fight to the end defending her in regards to the million she accepted.

[KittyWampus]

111. That is incorrect, most DU'ers feel Sanders is above the sort of dirty tricks his staffer pulled.

I am not a Hillary supporters but many of them outright said they felt Sanders didn't know and would never approve.

[joshcryer]

4. Red herrings and false dilemmas.

The core of creationist or climate change denialist rhetoric. Either move the goal posts or confuse the situation to the point where no one can get to the truth of the matter. Works best when there are a lot of people in agreement with you.

You start with poisoning the well (Clinton can't be believed), move to appeal to consequences (DNC limits debates which means it supports Clinton, then the PGN VAN error was a honey pot), slippery slopes and false dilemmas (if Sanders staffers did it then Clinton's staffers did it too).

You cannot 'win' this argument because the true believers will not change their mind. It is creationist / climate denialist rhetoric. I spent many years trying to convince deniers about these things and I don't think I convinced a single one, not a single one, even when I went so far as to build my own datasets and plot my own graphics using NCDD datasets (in particular, the USHCN raw data that wasn't processed at all).

I personally defended Sanders' staffers until I saw that the search queries were specific in nature and that they truly exported the Clinton voter file.

[rhett o rick]

115. Do you have any links to back up your allegations? nm

[JunkyardAngel83]

121. You didn't ask me but here are some links for you.

http://time.com/4155185/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-data/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/bernie-s/Sanders-take-Clinton-voter-data/

You can view the logs here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSBeQvNakGxuty36ACPFNaNLNeoqgz2Pn7e2x0VMYds/edit?usp=sharing

[djean111]

5. Whatever happened, I find it ludicrous that you evidently expect Bernie's supporters to switch

support to Hillary, and stop supporting Bernie. FFS, sniper fire? The excuses were ridiculous.

Oh, and I am supporting BERNIE SANDERS, not his staff. Because of issues. Datagate is just not that important. Not to mention I believe Hillary's staff partook of Bernie's data. I really do. And the "independent" audit thing is fucking pathetic.

[DanTex]

6. Where did I say I expected Bernie supporters to switch to Hillary?

[djean111]

7. Then - why are you so upset that Berniie's supporters are not "condemning" anything?

Again, we are not electing staffers.

I care as much about this as I do about emailgate and Benghazi - in themselves, pointless, but I look at who is attacking the candidate. That's the important thing to me.

And the bottom line is who do we support, and why. I cannot support the other candidates because of issues that will affect and have affected actual people. That is the reason to support or not support someone.

[DanTex]

8. Umm, the word "condemning" appears nowhere in my OP. And neither does the word "upset."

The OP was about hypocrisy. People playing down the significance of the data breach while at the same time spreading unfounded conspiracies theories about Hillary's campaigns supposed spying, or the DNC, etc.

[djean111]

13. Again, then, what is your point?

This is just the usual campaign stuff, and has nothing to do with issues that affect people. Bernie's supporters are not an issue, really. And I have never bought the bullshit that some spout, saying they would support a candidate, except for their supporters. If that is true, maybe the objections some have to "low information" voters is well-founded.

What, then, did you expect to happen, or hope would happen, as far as Bernie's supporters are concerned? The most important thing is support.

[DanTex]

17. Simply that there is a huge amount of hypocrisy among Bernie supporters, particularly those

most harshly critical of Hillary.

You're right that this issue doesn't affect people. Of course, neither do Hillary's emails, or the debate schedule, or what she said about abuelas, or DWS and the DNC, or any other Hillary-bashing outrage du jour.

What did I expect would happen? To be honest, I didn't expect this level of hypocrisy: people openly attacking Hillary for something that Bernie's staff did.

[djean111]

20. Is this your first primary? People openly attack both candidates.

And - after Hillary's fans/supporters/whatever defended the elaborate sniper lie, I would think there is not much Bernie and his supporters could do to top that. So - over and out, and Merry Christmas!

[DanTex]

24. And people also point out hypocrisy.

[Gore1FL]

31. Link to the post where you criticized Clinton's email issues

or did I just point out hypocrisy?

[DanTex]

45. Who cares about Clinton's email "issues"?

[bahrbearian]

70. The FBI

[Gore1FL]

97. Apparently not Hillary supporters

Apparently she gets a pass on things by her supporters too. Of course the idiotic email decision was her's and not her staff's.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy you were speaking of.

[joshcryer]

12. I don't think so, because the Clinton's are scandal magnets.

Literally everything they do is scrutinized to an absurd extent, so I think that the campaign internally is trying to do everything on the up and up. If this was Clinton's staffers getting data it would've fucking exploded, her campaign might have completely imploded at this point.

And I think NGP VAN was covering its ass because of the inevitable lawsuit if it covered up a data breach by any campaign. My guess is that it probably has happened before, campaigns seeing one anothers stuff, but this was the first time that one campaign's enterprising staffers decided to take advantage of it, so NGP VAN had to come out and admit it. Covering it up would be jail time for people involved. So if you think they are covering up Clinton's campaign exporting data you're reaching into conspiracy territory where people risk their lives, literally their freedom, for the Clinton's. I don't see that happening.

[JunkyardAngel83]

122. Well said. I agree.

[joeybee12]

26. nope

An admission that they cheated instead of trying to change the subject. ..yet again.

[djean111]

27. To me, stuff like that is not relevant to the campaign.

It does not translate into votes.

[joeybee12]

42. yet the sanders supporters expect that

Of Clinton for every, even imagined transgressions. And your response attempted to change the subject again. Oh well this whole mess will be over soon

[JonLeibowitz]

92. Like the e-mail scandal? Oh wait, Sanders put an end to that in the democratic primary.

[treestar]

9. It is sad

and really amazing. To live in that kind of bubble requires constant repetition to the self of the altered reality.

[corkhead]

15. you shouldn't talk about the writer of the OP like that.

DanTex is still one of us and although he supports a candidate who takes positions that would have been considered centrist Republican only a few decades ago, there still is a possibility that she could be our nominee so I believe we should keep DU civil and not insult our friends.

[JackInGreen]

53. I'll agree perhaps eventual allies

but his content has permanently excluded the definition of 'friends'.

[INdemo]

10. No issues to talk about just attack,attack,attack

How you checked the polling results in IA and NH lately?
I'm looking forward to Hillary's scream speech.....................

[orpupilofnature57]

36. Saturday debates, Monsanto misanthropes, speech coaches, and bathroom breaks, Hypocrisy, Entitlement

is what we'll be screaming about after the coronation .

[INdemo]

98. Iowa and NH wins will give give Bernie Sanders great

momentum leading up to SC and Arizona.
The Clinton campaign is obviously nervous,the reason DWS tried to sabotage Bernie's campaign.

[comradebillyboy]

140. RCP has Hillary up 15 in Iowa

Do you live in backwards world? Plus Bernie's lead in NH is shrinking.

[INdemo]

142. No ...Hillary cannot gain 16 points overnight

What will you say after Bernie Sanders wins the Iowa caucus?
Will you say it was a hoax and they counted the votes wrong or something?

[R B Garr]

141. Bernie's campaign sabotaged themselves. No help

was needed. That's what happens when you get caught doing underhanded dirty tricks to gain an advantage. She just stopped access until such time that they were assured compliance.

That's why Bernie fired people. They got caught.

[firebrand80]

11. Its natural to want to defend your "side"

But watching this whole thing evolve from Sander's employees caught doing something wrong to another issue to blame Hillary for has been quite amusing.

If and when Bernie is out of the race, there will be nonstop "Hillary Cheated!" Threads for the next couple of months..."If only people would have had a chance to hear Bernie, but Hillary and her friends in corporate media and the DNC..."

[Thinkingabout]

16. The audit report will produce the truth, I am not sure Hillary's team has

Felt the need to breach other candidates data, they have developed a great team working for a great goal and are spending every moment working to get Hillary elected.

[firebrand80]

19. Nope. Excuses for the audit report are already prepared

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251943486

[Thinkingabout]

23. Yes, the guns have been firing before the whites of the eyes have been seen.

[BlueCaliDem]

103. Sadly, that's par for the course with some Sanders supporters - I mean, IF they really are

Sanders supporters.

[treestar]

81. It is becoming like birtherism

No matter what news comes out, doubling down and making it a conspiracy occurs. Protecting that alternate reality no matter what.

[firebrand80]

85. Poll denialism is already like climate denial here

[INdemo]

143. Its geting really deep here and it will get even worse after

Hillary gives her scream speech after losing Iowa.

[Jarqui]

14. "The only people who accessed data improperly were Bernie staffers."

No that hasn't been established yet.

1. The Sanders campaign maintains they're "very confident" their data was compromised during breaches in October and they have asked repeatedly for an audit to determine that. Until an independent audit by qualified people takes place, your assertion has absolutely no sound foundation whatsoever.

2. Secondly, an audit has not taken place on the most recent incident. The data manager maintains he was checking the extent of the breach and the activity logs (that the Sanders campaign didn't have when they fired him) seem to back him up on that. From the logs, Clinton data was accessed and lists were generated from it but none of those lists were exported or used to take or analyse Clinton's data. No one has proven that the Sanders Data manager was lying - particularly when the activity logs seem to back him up.

3. A lot of folks have come down on the data manager for doing what he did. I'm not one of them. This had happened at least twice before according to several people at the Sanders campaign. Unlike the last two times, this time, the data manager got evidence and witnesses. If he did what he did the previous two times, Sanders data would be exposed to more breaches like the one they just experienced after at least two breaches before - when they feel someone compromised their data. The data manager's actions proved a problem in data security existed and Bernie is in a pretty good legal position with that evidence to force the DNC to audit those breaches of last October when the Sanders campaign feels "very confident" that their data was compromised. Without that evidence and witnesses the data manager got, without that data mangers actions, the Sanders campaign would have little recourse for those earlier breaches and be in the same boat going forward.

The DNC and Clinton campaign opened up Pandora's box shooting from the hip. They do not seem too comfortable letting anyone look inside at last October. Why is that? Why should they fear anyone looking for prior data breaches and what happened if they did nothing wrong? An audit might clear them of suspicion ... or prove something they don't want people to know.

[DanTex]

18. It's been established that his staffers accessed data improperly, and there's no evidence at all

that anyone else did.

It's also "not established" that Bernie doesn't like to stomp on puppies. Should that become a big talking point too?

[andrewv1]

44. It's almost like getting overtime pay in the Brooklyn Campaign Headquarters

Over the Holidays....
I noticed Christmas Eve seems to be bringing out some "overreaching" Pro Hillary stories this AM.

Anyway, one thing I would question you though is....

How does a Right Wing Democrat beat a Right Wing Republican in the General Election?

[mythology]

80. By pointing out that isn't the case?

Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal Senator during her sessions in office by DW-Nominate score. When she and Sanders were in the Senate together, they voted the same 93% of the time. Hardly the resume of an arch conservative.

Oh and the Republicans are going to help by calling her a socialist and a communist and all sort of other names just like they did Obama and would do for either Sanders or O'Malley.

[Agschmid]

91. What a crappy thing to say.

I'm so sick of the "paid trolls" meme, it's crap.

[Jarqui]

63. "It's been established that his staffers accessed data improperly"

Should Sanders proceed with his lawsuit, I'm very, very confident that the Clinton campaign and DNC are going to have a heck of a time proving the data managers actions were "improper" in the sense that they were not someone trying to demonstrate the extent of a security breach. Obviously, one might argue that if he did anything it might be "improper" but I don't agree with that. The activity logs look like he was trying to prove a breach to me - multiple witnesses, multiple logins, multiple computers accessing it, multiple states, multiple Clinton fields - but only partially searched. And they didn't export those searches or the data behind them - they didn't "steal" that data - it resided on the VAN system.

What really was improper was the DNC not properly responding to the complaint of breaches before.

This time, the DNC cut off the campaign accessing the data, went to the media and called for an audit. In October, they did none of those things for at least two complaints of security breaches. The DNC are in a really bad position to try to explain or justify the differences in their behavior to a judge between recently and last October.

In case you didn't notice, it was the Sanders campaign who filed the lawsuit, willing to go before a judge with these allegations. At the outset, a key desire was Sanders campaign wanted access to their data. The DNC was defenseless with their inappropriate breach of their contract with the Sanders campaign. No contest. The DNC had to conduct themselves within the confines of their contract and they gave the Sanders campaign access to their data back. The DNC didn't have a legal leg to stand on and were over the top.

In case you didn't notice, the lawsuit is still in place - hasn't been dropped. The Sanders campaign suffered damages from the DNC's behavior. But even though the Sanders campaign got data access restored, they're not done. The Sanders campaign want an audit done for breaches since they started using the system - because they're "very confident" their data was compromised. So confident, they're willing to go before a judge.

This was posted by the DNC software vendor
http://blog.ngpvan.com/data-security-and-privacy

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.”
....
For clarification, NGP VAN played no part in the October data issue that has been mentioned.

So NGP VAN is not dismissing the October breach outright - just that they were not involved.

At least four people from the Sanders campaign have made the claim. The Sanders campaign manager said:

"Two months ago, ?shortly? after our digital vendor, who conducts modeling for our campaign, told us that there was a failure in the firewall that prevents campaigns from seeing one another's data, we contacted the DNC and told them about this failure. We were very concerned that our data had been compromised and we were assured at that time that the firewall between the campaigns data would be restored. We're actually very confident that some of our data was lost to one of the other campaigns."

So outside of four staff, the Sanders campaign actually have a digital vendor for modeling software who witnessed the breaches in October. Whoops!! The Sanders campaign probably also has emails on the October breaches too. I don't think the Sanders campaign are going to have a lot of trouble establishing a data security issue happened in October.

[DanTex]

72. Sanders seems to agree with me, which is why the staffers were fired.

As far as what the Sanders campaign claims, or what you are very confident of, that means basically nothing to me. Particularly the absurd idea that multiple people spent an hour running multiple queries against Clinton's data, even creating save lists, just to document that it was possible.

They were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Everything else is a smokescreen.

[Jarqui]

93. Bernie wasn't around and hadn't heard about it before Josh was fired

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20151220_Philadelphian_Uretsky_at_center_of_Dems__data_breach.html

Tad Devine, senior adviser to the Sanders campaign, dismissed any notion that data had been tampered with or that the campaign had set out to exploit the accident.

Devine said Uretsky had mishandled things by not immediately reporting to top staffers that a system problem had caused Clinton voter information to appear in Sanders' computers Thursday. That's why he was fired that day, before it became public, he said.

From the lack of activity on a log that can add users (like a IT Data Manager would have privileges for), it looks like he was distracted between 11 and 17 minutes after it started - that's when he probably was beginning to report the issue to his bosses at the Sanders campaign on the phone. You don't bug your superior immediately with nonsense. You verify what you're going to tell him to some extent before you embarrass him with others by passing along bad info.

They were not caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Josh had used this system since 2007. He knew all about the activity logs and said as much. It's not like it's a big corporate secret either:
https://www.ngpvan.com/content/privacy-policy

NGP VAN logs IP addresses of users for internal purposes only. We use IP addresses for diagnostic purposes when an error or bug is reported; that way we can track the exact steps a user took that produced the error.

He knew there would be a log of what they did.
He didn't hide what he was doing from the employees he asked to help him or his superiors he had already phoned.
And he didn't export any of those lists.

To me, he was fired more for PR purposes than anything else. The DNC and Clinton were going to the media and they had to put a head on a platter for the public's perception of it. The public (as Clinton said were not that interested in this) were not going to take the time to understand this. Ditto for the two staff suspensions - optics. None of them were stealing Clinton's data.

As I've mentioned before, if you really wanted that data, you could go under the hood and hack it. Given the number of the securitiy breaches, I doubt it would be that hard. It wouldn't shock me if the GOP hasn't found someone to do that already in light of all these breaches.

[Thinkingabout]

21. So far it has been reported Hillary's data has been breached, it has not been

Reported either Hillary nor MOM teams has breached Sanders data.

[joshcryer]

37. You have yet to address my comments on the voter file searches.

I think you're plain wrong that the "data manager" was just poking around for the sake of white hat goodness. He could've gone about it completely differently to show his intent in the logs. Simply exporting the supposed voter file to a list named "This is Buggy," would've shown a lot of intent on his behalf. But no, they named it "Not Hilary," and "Not Bernie," and "Data Team."

[Jarqui]

43. The naming convention proves absoluutely nothing

There are all kinds of reasons he might have had for calling the lists or directory whatever.

I did a string search for "voter file" and I'm not sure what you're referring to with this "You have yet to address my comments on the voter file searches." What was I supposed to address?

I have addressed the lists and what they were doing in numerous posts around here before.

[joshcryer]

59. With the specificity of the ranges...

...it indicates he was trying to get data.

And yes, leaving an uncontroversial name in the file system would prove intent. "Just Testing" is a shit load less suspicious than "Data Team." And the range specificity is damning, because you can do the same 'test' without getting whole, useful, ranges, just as a proof of concept.

Occam's razor here.

I have responded to your lengthy defenses of what was done, but I'll just link my last debunking of this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=927402

[Jarqui]

90. Not necessarily - or at all

A list is a bunch of items IDs. It has no other data. So in order to identify what the list is of, you usually/nearly always document how you got the list in the list name or by who the list is going to (sometimes, you can add a description of what the list is). A list of debtors to call might be named after the collector's ID - that may be in the collector field in the debtor file. A list of subscribers among many magazines might be named for the particular magazine and date of issue they're going to receive during that publishing period. Etc.

So the way to distinguish a list in that voter file system would often just reflect how that list of voters was selected - in this case with some part of the Clinton field name used for the selection and some cutoff value that the selection used. ie HFASupport<30

Otherwise, you risk getting a bunch of voters IDs with list names that you can't remember how you got them. To prove access to Clinton data, he can say "look in 'data team' (directory) for 'HFAsupport<30' (field & criteria)- that proves I got access to Clinton's data field 'support' and was able to select voters with support value less than 30".

If the values in that Support field were 5, 10, 15, 20, ... 85, 90, 95, etc (increments of five), the list wouldn't tell you if the voter you selected had a field value of 5 or 20. You don't get that value. You just get a yes or no answer to the question "Support < 30?"

Nation Builder is VGN VAN for non Democratic party users
http://nationbuilder.com/fields_available_for_import
It NGP VAN supports SQL
http://plus.ngpvan.com/jobs/sql-developer

So if you want a procedure to steal Clinton's data during a breach:
1. Login to a state (IA, NH, early primary states first)
2. Run SQL statement (that NGP VAN supports)
SELECT VOTERFILE
WHERE HFA_PRIMARY_PRIORITY NOT NULL OR WHERE HFA_SUPPORT NOT NULL OR WHERE HFA_TURNOUT NOT NULL (etc)
COLUMN VOTERID HFA_PRIMARY_PRIORITY HFA_SUPPORT HFA_TURNOUT
SPOOL (to file on disk called) v:\Data TeamCLINTON_IOWA_VOTERS_DATA
3. Tell someone to export print file v:\Data TeamCLINTON_IOWA_VOTERS_DATA
(I presume this step for security reasons - that you cannot print directly to a local file on their network)
4. login to next state and do the same thing

Now that's how you'd steal their data if that was what you really wanted to do. One pass through the data to select it and another shorter pass within the same sentence through the selection to extract and output it to a file on disk. One statement per state. In the 47 minutes the breach was open, they probably could have done a bunch of the early primary states and maybe 47 or more states. 2-3 people running the SQL statements and 1-2 exporting.

You wouldn't wind up with unexported, incomplete lists with vague values that the activity logs show they did. You'd wind up with every byte of Clinton data in those fields for close to every state on your own computers - out of NGP VAN's view.

As Josh said, the logs would show you doing that and that is blatant theft. But I don't see his partial lists as a good way to go about getting this data.

SQL is not rocket science - it's pretty simple stuff. You don't screw around with partial select lists - that have no actual data values in them and take longer to generate a partial profile of the data in the field. One SQL sentence can get you every bit of data in the voter file in each state with fewer CPU requirements.

Josh had been working with this application (evolved from Obama) since 2007 and Josh has been in IT, starting as a C++ programmer for 20 for years. Generating a SQL report would be 1000 times easier for him than going to the bathroom at a debate.

[joshcryer]

132. I don't think Josh had time to do the SQL stuff.

Assuming that they even had access to the SQL database (NGP VAN appears to me to be the intermediary to the databases; they have their local database, but they don't have access to the actual SQL DB to import or export stuff).

But you do have a point about the ranges, but you could just export them to different lists rather than one list (which, in retrospect, is what you would do anyway. "Buggy Range 5-6, Buggy Range 11-12," etc).

What I think happened is simple, they saw that there was access to the other campaigns stuff, they did a list search, and didn't know what they were going to do with it after that point. Whether they were going to exploit it or not. They could've spent the entire day Wednesday messing with the data only to be unable to do a damn thing because the DNC blocked their NGP VAN access.

[Jarqui]

133. They were able to get one of their own Nevada lists exported

before their access was cut off and they were able to generate a summary report and export that.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/18/merged_document.pdf

"11:31:00 NV Logged into NV, ran a search on Sanders committee SQs, exported list"
(from near bottom of page 3)

I don't see why NGP VAN would tout NGP VAN having SQL capability, tout the ability of a campaign to add their owns fields, the Sanders campaign hire an IT Data manager who is capable of SQL (the SQL sentence I drafted is so quick and simple ...), the campaign design and implement their own fields to add to the data to the voter database ... and then leave the campaign in a limited position of not being able to get their customized data out.

Doesn't make tons of sense to me.

[joshcryer]

134. Seems obvious to me.

They didn't have authorization to export any HFA generated lists.

[Jarqui]

135. If that were true, you'd think they would document the failed attempt, like this:

"11:27:38 NH Attempts to run a search. At this point cannot access page sections."

It seems obvious to me that a log showing the activity of users suspected of taking advantage of a data breach with software that logs details of their activities would show attempts to export data like they showed for NV's Sanders data. But we didn't see any attempts like that. A common area for software to track activity is in error handling when the message comes back to the user saying "sorry you don't have security access to do that" (you write that out to the user activity log that that user tried to do something they were not allowed to do - it's technically very easy to pick that stuff off in nearly any software application)

When NGP VAN was responding to the breach - after the breach was reported, they said "While we investigated the issue, we restricted access to affected areas of the VAN product for all users and limited access to data exports." Why would they limit "access to data exports" after the breach if it was already blocked or the security limits were already in place? It seems obvious to me they would not need to do that if it was already secure.

Your position does not seem obvious at all to me. It's unlikely conjecture.

[joshcryer]

136. No, if they don't have the option to save...

...there won't be a log saying "attempt to save," because they didn't have that option, from within the software. It'd just be greyed out.

It may be why Ali Nikseresht got privilege escalation before they shut it down, because he wanted to save the data manually somehow, either from within the software or from outside of it using a third party program he was working on. But they got locked out before they could really turn it into a true scandal.

What they could do was copy the voter file to their lists, so the file was, somewhere, on their system, in a cache or something, or on a folder that the NGP VAN software used for saving data. However, it was still only "accessible" by the NGP VAN software. That's why NGP VAN says "We are confident at this point that no campaigns have access to or have retained any voter file data of any other clients; with one possible exception, one of the presidential campaigns."

Note the utter gobbledygook of that corporate speech. Rephrased it should say, "one of the presidential campaigns accessed and have possibly retained voter file data of another campaign."

"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."

They couldn't export the HFA lists within the software, but it was retained somewhere on the system somehow. My guess is that they "limited data exports" because they didn't know the nature of the requests and didn't want it to get out of hand. I think they limited all exporting, even valid campaign data that the staffers legitimately had. I don't know for sure but it's possible that they could have done a merge of the HFA and Bernie lists and made a pull request to the NGP VAN servers, then exported the fully correlated list with the Bernie voter file. But that would have taken some time to do, with commands being needed for each ID in the voter file. NGP VAN, then, shutting off the ability to export was covering their ass.

[msrizzo]

46. It's easy to say they are very confident.

With the way the Sanders campaign has tried to deflect any blame to their staff at the same time that they have fired and suspended some of them, pardon me if I consider that affirmation of their "confidence" just more bluster. I could also say that they are just doing this as a preemptive strike knowing that the record will show that they were in Hillary's files in October as well. And if I was inclined to CT, which I am not, I could also say that their "passionate" protests are really just proof that they knew exactly when they could get at Hillary's data and it was just a setup to cover their tracks and provide something they could point to as part of their flabby excuse that they had to access her data in order to show it was possible.

But since they have already pre-damned the report by calling the firm hired to do the audit all their usual names, they've got that covered too.

[HERVEPA]

22. Does is not get boring for you doing the same post day after day after day after day after day

after day after day after day....

[Bonobo]

25. It seems he HATES Bernie fans. Fuck the candidates, he REALLY cares about dissing Progressives.

What's up with that, Dan from Texas?

[RoccoR5955]

32. Must be a plant

from the Koch Brothers.

[NCTraveler]

33. Seems to me they are promoting the truth.

A progressive value. You on the other hand did exactly what you are decrying. Attacking the progressive while deflecting from the issue. There is serious content in the op. Sanders has fired his National Data Director, suspended others, and it looks like he isn't done housecleaning yet. But you are simply attacking the poster here and adding no value. The op has serious content. I understand your need to deflect.

[Bonobo]

39. "Serious content"? It is about citizens. not candidates?

What possible import does it have with regards to the Primaries?

It is an attack on Progressives, something DanTex does over and over.

[redstateblues]

62. Not true- DanTex is a progressive

If you look at his positions on the issues you would have to admit that. You just don't like that he is supporting HRC. The idea that only TRUE progressives support Bernie is ridiculous.

[DanTex]

73. You seem to like attacking me personally, over and over.

Not sure what I've done to offend you.

I don't attack progressives, because I am one of them. I attack hypocrisy, and some of the arguments we're hearing from Sanders supporters on this issue, as I pointed out in my OP, are teeming with it.

It has nothing to do with progressivism. Blaming Clinton or DWS for something that Sanders staffers did is not progressive.

[Bonobo]

82. Show me a post where you attack hypocrisy From Clinton fans.

You emit an endless stream of hate at only Sanders fans. It is not really up for debate.

What you have done to offend me is to dedicate most of your posting to attacking Progressives. The list of hippie punching OPs from you is long and well known.

[hobbit709]

89. Right on the money there.

[DanTex]

99. There isn't anywhere near as much hypocrisy from Hillary fans. That's a simple fact.

Just because there are two "sides" doesn't make them both equally guilty. You gotta admit, the response to the data thing from Bernie fans is just bizarre. One of Bernie's staffers did the wrongdoing, and now people are mad at Hillary! What?

Also, you should probably stop accusing me of attacking progressives, because I am one of them.

[Bonobo]

112. If you are a Progressive, I cannot fathom why you wouldn't support Bernie.

Why don't you support the more Progressive candidate?

And really, you think that the Clinton camp is less hypocritical?

Listen, Dan, just because you think so doesn't make it so. My opinion is absolutely the opposite of that. We can agree to disagree on that, but there are a few facts not in dispute.

1. Sanders is the more Progressive candidate.

2. You attack Sanders fans a LOT.

If it WERE the hypocrisy that enrages you so, I would expect to see you call it out when it happens on the other side as well. Your claim that there is LESS of it is weak indeed because even if it were LESS, there is admittedly some. So why the fervor with which you toss out epithets like "professional left" and other left-bashing language that I will not waste my time in recovering from the trash bins of history but with left such an indelible and bad taste in my mouth? I have never heard a Progressive refer to other Progressives in the disparaging way you refer to them, so I really don't know what to make of your claim to be one. Is it self-hatred or something else?

[DanTex]

116. Because I don't want the GOP in the White House.

And, yes, I do think the Clinton camp is less hypocritical, by a long shot.

And there's one big fact that you left out
3) Hillary is far, far better than any of the Republicans.

Oddly, even though this seems plainly obvious, more so than just about anything about this campaign season, a lot of self-described "progressives" don't seem to understand that. For example, Manny's post that got him PPRed was advocating writing in Bernie if he loses the primary, which is effectively helping the GOP win, and it got 100+ recs.

When you say I attack "progressives", you're wrong. In fact, if you look at polls, most progressives are Hillary supporters (it's close to an even split though). Also, before the Hillary-bashing there was Obama-bashing. You couldn't have missed that. Well, Obama's approval rating among liberal Dems is in the 90s.

So the people who are incessantly bashing Hillary and Obama may call themselves progressive, but they are in now way representative of the progressive community or progressive values. I am a proud progressive, but I am also not stupid enough to think that, for example, the difference between a $12 and $15 minimum wage is bigger than the difference between $0 (which is what many in the GOP want) and $12.

[Bonobo]

117. Jesus, you sound like you really don't get it.

You think the difference between $12 and $15 minimum wage, for example, is just a little thing. Yeah, I know you do. Sure, you say "VS. 0 which is what they want", but you really, underneath it all, DO NOT GET IT.

The difference, friend, is fucking huge. It is. It's $3 bucks to you. To a person getting min. wage, it is the difference between eating and not eating, having a place to sleep and NOT.

An extra $400 bucks/month. You have no idea.

[DanTex]

119. I'd say the same about you.

Of course I understand that $15 is more than $12. You don't seem to understand that $12 is more than $0. And also that $12 is more than $7.25. And also that the difference between $15 and $12 is not only much less than the difference between $12 and $0, it is also much less than the difference between $12 and $7.25.

Do you not get that a big chunk of the GOP actually wants the minimum wage to be $0? And if we don't win in November, this could actually happen? Not to mention everything else.

Is there not room for a drop of political reality in what you consider "progressive"?

If someone came around and advocated for an $18 minimum wage would you suddenly be attacking Bernie the way you attack Hillary?

[Bonobo]

120. Homeless vs. a Living wage. THAT is what you treat so flippantly.

You act like $12 is the best we can hope for when the minimum wage in Australia is, for example, higher than that.

You support a candidate who would START her negotiation below a living wage.

I'm sorry. You are privileged, not a "pragmatist".

[DanTex]

123. $12 is homeless? That's odd.

Not as odd as the fact that you can't even bring yourself to address the fact that there is such a thing as the GOP, and that if we don't win in November, they will control all three branches of the government, and that the difference between Hillary and Bernie is tiny compared to the difference between either of them and the GOP.

Over and over now. It's like you don't even want to acknowledge that the GOP exists.

And, sure, I guess if you ignore all that, then the case for Bernie starts to make sense. But I don't see the value in ignoring reality.

As far as privilege? Yes, I'm privileged. I imagine you are as well. I'm privileged enough that even if the GOP won, I'd do fine. It would be depressing, but it probably wouldn't affect me personally very much (at least not economically -- some issues like climate change affect everyone).

My impression is that a lot of Bernie supporters are the same way. They are willing to risk the GOP takeover because they are privileged enough that it won't really hurt them. So they through caution and pragmatism to the wind. Well, I'm privileged, but I still care what happens to the country.

[Nyan]

76. They can't find a good reason to hate Bernie

So they go after his supporters.

[redstateblues]

105. I like Bernie- Some of his supporters

do not represent his character. On the other hand, the constant attack on Hillary makes DU seem like Free Republic-complete with RW references to Vince Foster and Paula Jones.

[NCTraveler]

28. Who would have thought this is going...

Exactly the opposite of his fans statements. The more we know....

They are showing enthusiasm. We are being serious. Some don't recognize that enthusiasm does not equal seriousness.

[Squinch]

68. I think there is something to that. It also showed up in the whole crazy "internet poll" argument.

that said that internet polls really are scientific, and because Bernie supporters tend to vote in them, there are actually no Hillary supporters.

I like both candidates and will vote for whoever is best positioned to beat the Republicans when my state's primary rolls around (which, let's face it, is likely to be Hillary but you never know) but this stuff is just nutty.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. Hillary Employs a Monsanto top misanthrope, Hypocrisy,, Please . n/t

[edbermac]

30. Jury results.

On Thu Dec 24, 2015, 06:25 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bernie fan hypocrisy, laid bare once again by datagate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251943771

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This topic has been gone over and over again, and this OP doesn't bring any new info at all. All this OP is about is shit stirring, and we have plenty of that at DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 24, 2015, 06:34 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: alerter is correct.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break. If GD: P got rid of threads rehashing articles and incidents, there's wouldn't be a thread bashin Hillary based on an article from April. Vote to leave.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Utterly bullshit alert. Grow up!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[NCTraveler]

38. Amazing that three people would vote to hide that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251687330

[redstateblues]

52. even more amazing that someone would alert it

[NCTraveler]

61. Seems the alert was pretty justified...

Under the current state of DU. Three votes to hide. There is strong support for a hide.

[redstateblues]

104. Considering the huge majority of BSers here

It's amazing that the jury didn't vote to hide. Just because an alert gets three hides doesn't have anything to do with it being justified.

[baldguy]

34. Their hypocrisy goes to their core. And it duplicates the worst hypocrisies from the RW.

Their candidate can do no wrong (no matter how much evidence piles up to the contrary).

They imagine conspiracies against their candidate where none exist.

They disdain "professional politicians" while they support someone whose been in politics his entire life - then they assume the people in the party, in the other campaigns, and the press covering them won't behave professionally.

They craft lies & insist that the lies are facts, then use their echo chamber to provide proof.

They denigrate everyone who shows even the slightest deviation from their dogma.

And it's really sad, because Bernie himself does none of these things, and I, as a Hillary supporter would be perfectly happy voting for him in the general election if he wins the nomination. Just makes you wonder where his supporters get their ideas & what their objectives are.

[nxylas]

35. The guy who did it was fired. Bernie apologised to Hillary.

What more exactly do you want? For Bernie to become as distrusted as Hillary? We've a long way to go before we reach that point.

[NCTraveler]

40. The "guy" who did it?

Seems you are missing a lot of what is factually known. I want an investigation as this appears it might rise to the level of Federal Election Tampering. Sanders National Data Director foolishly talked to the press and let a big one slip out. He knew what he was doing was wrong. His own words. He established intent all on his own.

[nxylas]

49. You might want a full investigation

But DWS and HRH may not be so keen....

[gordyfl]

51. Bernie Sanders is "honest", says DWS

Addressing the data leak controversy, DNC chairwoman, and former Hillary campaign co-chair (2008) Debbie Wasserman Schultz called "candidate" Bernie Sanders an "honest man"'. She called him "honest".

[Chef Eric]

71. You don't get it.

Josh Uretsky's screwup is a MUCH bigger concern than perpetual war, climate change, and a disappearing middle class.

So let's not take our eyes off the ball!

Oh, and don't forget, Hillary Clinton is like your abuela.

[nxylas]

86. I shall consider myself slapped on the wrists

BERNGHAZI!!!!11eleven

[redstateblues]

101. Stop blaming it on Hillary

[bowens43]

41. More hill fan desperation....I am looking forward to the upcoming repeat of 2008

maybe after she loses the nomination again hillary will finally realize that the country wants her to just go away....

[Tarc]

47. This is what happens when a small yet enthusiastic campaign hits the reality wall

of poll numbers just not budging much. The enthusiasm is great, and Bernie himself is a reputable and good candidate. The problem is that some of his supporters seem to be unable to handle the idea that people (lots of people) simply prefer Hillary.

They cope with this with nasty personal attacks, repetition of Trump and Limbaugh lines of attack, and really is is just getting sad.

[TheFarseer]

48. Hypocrisy?

I want the money out of politics no more bad trade deals and no more senseless wars and I STILL DO. No hypocrisy here.

[Nyan]

50. Why don't you go cry to DWS and complain about big bad Bernie supporters?

I'm sure she'll press charges for you. Oh wait. She doesn't even want investigation. She's afraid of something getting out. Whatever that is.

[yeoman6987]

65. Interesting. Seems to me she quickly agreed to an investigation during the debate

Why are you saying otherwise?

[Nyan]

75. Did Bernie debate DWS? What are you talking about?

DWS hasn't responded. There has to be an investigation where DWS doesn't involve her cronies.

[yeoman6987]

79. Oops....sorry! No where ready for this thread.

I apologize. I thought Hillary. I will stay out of this because I am not paying attention. Have a good one !

[notadmblnd]

54. THAT DAY!

It can not be said how many times on other occasions- who and when the database was inappropriately accessed. Hence the request for an investigation.

[redstateblues]

56. When they can't win the argument with DanTex

It always devolves into a personal attack.

[Perogie]

58. It was a Staffer not Bernie

Yet HRC supporters are fine with HRC voting to invade Iraq, her support of TPP, her being against gay marriage etc etc etc

[BlandGrenade]

60. I'd like to know why

The DNC has these levers to pull in the first place?? I'm more of a Bernie supporter than a Democrat this cycle, so why should the democratic leadership have my data in the first place, except to cut me off from bernie's campaign? I guess it's because the DNC at its core is little more than a business and we are valuable leads they can shake their tin cup at after they crown hillary. I think the campaigns should hold their own databases and the DNC should keep their paws off. This truly is a corporatist party, perhaps as much so as the GOP. It's enough to make me sleep in on election day.

[Indydem]

64. Because it is the property of the party.

Why do you think ole Bernard switched over to being a Democrat for the election?

To get access to these lists. He couldn't have even thought about running without them.

[BlandGrenade]

88. Good point

I hadn't thought of it like that.

[marble falls]

67. Surely you aren't advovcating sitting out the election or writing in?

[BlandGrenade]

84. Of course not

I just hate that my support is taken for granted, and the system seems to be set up with that in mind.

[marble falls]

96. Couldn't agree with you more. I will gladly vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the....

nomination.

There's no GOPer worth even a second look.

I'll have a bumper sticker and a yard sign. Sometimes you gotta go with your second choice, just not too soon.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. A staffer Bernie selected did wrong and was fired. This is not the first bad staffer in a good group

I remember Darleen Druyun who was appointed by Bill Clinton in his first term to be Principal Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force. She was convicted of price fixing to benefit Boeing, her former employer. She went to jail, paid fines and then I voted again for the man who had appointed her by his own free will because Bill Clinton did not do what his staff did.
I'm not voting for staffers. If I was I'd never have voted for Bill the second time seeing as he appointed a corrupt person to a position rife with opportunities.

But you, you see staff as some sort of extension of the candidate. I suppose in 08 Mark Penn was an extension of Hillary? How about Geraldine Ferraro? Should we count things they said and did as having been said and done by Hillary? Or do you use various standards to suit the moment, in grand hypocritical fashion?

[JackInGreen]

69. Utter BS

but that's cool, you can keep posting it and keep playing pivotman but it doesn't make it any more true.

[Amimnoch]

74. As a rabid Hillary supporter who never misses a chance to snipe at the opposition, can we just get

past this one? Please.

Without contradicting any of your points, the Sanders campaign took good actions to make it right.

Regardless of whomever was right or wrong in this whole debacle, nobody (No Democratic Party Candidate at least) will "win" from this if it keeps dragging through the mud. Our Attacking Sanders or his supporters for it does not help our cause. The devoted of Sanders attacking Hillary/DWS/DNC or us does not help their cause.

All the continuation of this will accomplish is reducing the real and needed discussion of issues, candidate capabilities, candidate qualification, and the future, and a secondary accomplishment of giving the republicans much more ammo than we need to give them come the General election timeframe. Make no mistake, they are happy to sit back and quiet on this.. allow us to go at each others throats.. Then when it comes time for the General, whichever candidate we have will be attacked nationally using the talking points we gave them.

[rurallib]

77. Bernie Sanders did not steal the data

nor was he involved. The DNC WAAAAY over reacted.
nice try

[JunkyardAngel83]

124. Who's saying Bernie himself stole the data?

His staffers did. It's in the logs.

[Motown_Johnny]

78. Another dishonest post from a Clinton supporter. Why am I not shocked?

The whole thing lasted 40 minutes, not an hour, and nobody is insisting that this is nothing.

Three staffers have been fired so far. That clearly isn't nothing.

Also, your analogy is wrong.

There was no firewall so it isn't like taking something from a house. It is more like finding something on the sidewalk. Besides that, the information was copied, not removed from the Clinton campaign. They still had the information too. It isn't like removing a TV.

If you can discuss this honestly then I would love to see it. It seems that you, and many other Clinton supporters, need to be dishonest to make a point.

[MariaThinks]

83. makes no sense to me either.

[uponit7771]

100. If a HRC staffer did anything close to this there would be 20 ops a day on it

[grasswire]

102. epic fail

authoritarians riding this horse -- FAIL

[libodem]

107. Merry Christmas

[JunkyardAngel83]

129. That's cute.

Merry Christmas!

[PosterChild]

109. K&R!

[JI7]

113. These people are not Sanders supporters as much as they are Conspiracy THeorists , Hate Clinton and

other democrats and similar types. they would be reacting the same way if it was someone other than Sanders running against her.

[Logical]

114. LOL, as usual, Dan being Dan. nt

[AgingAmerican]

125. The vendor refutes the basic premise of your OP

Thus your op has no legs.

[potone]

126. How many more threads are there going to be on this topic?

Good lord, enough is enough! Bernie apologized and fired the staff responsible for the intrusion. But some Hillary supporters just can't let it go. Why??? And by the way, Merry Christmas!

[ejbr]

127. Given Hillary's supporters forgiveness of all of her transgressions,

you may want to give us a pass (if one is warranted)

[840high]

128. It's Xmas - you just can't control yourself today?

[AgingAmerican]

130. Nothing like bullying and insulting people to get them to vote with you!

[DanTex]

131. Merry Xmas.

This OP was posted yesterday (the 24th) before work. Which is pretty easy to figure out. Wonder why you didn't. Could it be that, as you said, "you just can't control yourself"?

[Cha]

137. Still relevant.. big surprise.

[Cha]

138. KICK!

[R B Garr]

139. This thread is a gem! Thanks again to DanTex for

exposing the Bernie fan hypocrisy in such a hilarious fashion. Couldn't agree with you more. Bernie campaign's actual documented malfeasance is nothing compared to mere thoughts about Clinton. Clinton! Outrage! Hilarious

[Cha]

144. KICK!