New Information Shows DNC Violated Its Own Rules When It Shut Down Sanders Campaign Data Access

[demmiblue]

Source: Addicting Info

<snip>

It stated that under a contract between the DNC and the Sanders campaign, pertaining to the data system’s use, formal notice in writing is required if either side believes the other has violated the rules on privacy. Additionally, each side is supposed to be allowed 10 days to address any concerns.

“The DNC may not suspend the Campaign’s access to critical Voter Data out of haste or desperation to clean up after the DNC’s own mistakes,” the suit says.

<snip>

What’s important to know is this: Whether you are for Bernie or Hillary, the fault ultimately is with the DNC and their chosen vendor for not resolving the issue when it was first reported. To make matters worse, the DNC rushed to apply a draconian punishment for the resulting breach. It’s also important to know that the DNC cut off Sanders from his own data, not just from a generic DNC list, essentially taking his campaign’s private data hostage.

The DNC wanted to have people held accountable for misconduct, and while that is fair, will they be applying the same level of punishment to their leadership for the mishandling of this whole fiasco?

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/19/new-information-shows-dnc-violated-its-own-rules-when-it-shut-down-sanders-campaign-data-access/

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. The chair should resign as she mishandled it

[JayhawkSD]

6. The chair has a blatant conflict of interest

As a long time supporter of Hillary Clinton, she cannot be equally supportive of all Democratic candidates and should resign due to her clear bias for Clinton. No, Sanders is not a Democrat, but he is a Democratic candidate.

[Lancero]

48. Hiring NGPVAN was a conflict of intrest as well...

Given the ties that one of their founders has to Hillarys last campaign.

[libdem4life]

58. Yes. Conflict of Interest came first and should be addressed first and foremost.

Again, more shady dealings. Behind the scenes manipulation. Less and less presidential.

I think an investigation into the company comes first. Then everything else will potentially evolve. And it was more than one of their founders...if you look down the list, most of them had some political relationship with her.

That in itself is not the issue, however, it is that she/DWS/They used this situation for Hillary's advantage.

Oh to be a fly on the wall at both insider camps this weekend.

[merrily]

81. Of course he's a Democrat now. The DNC doesn't run anyone but Democrats for the Democratic

Presidential nomination.

[Renew Deal]

2. The contract had clauses that permitted the DNC to protect the data

This is the part of the brief that permits the DNC to cut off the data

Cutting off access during the breach is covered here:

16) The Agreement requires the DNC to “use security measures, with respect to the
Campaign Data, that are consistent with good practices in the data processing industry.”
Agreement, ¶ 3(f). Under the Agreement, the DNC warrants that its services shall “be performed
in a professional and workmanlike manner, consistent with industry standards in the data
processing industry.” Agreement, ¶ 8.


Keeping access cut off until the problem is resolved is covered here:

17) The Agreement further requires the DNC to “take all measures necessary to
protect the secrecy of, and to avoid disclosure and unauthorized use of” confidential information
disclosed by the Campaign to the DNC (“Confidential Information”). Agreement, ¶ 7(a).
Pursuant to the Agreement, the DNC undertakes to “immediately notify the Campaign in the
including the full extent of the time, place and manner of the use or disclosure and the corrective
steps taken by the DNC to address the unauthorized use or disclosure.” Id.

Those two clauses let the DNC do what it needs to do to protect the data.

[Omaha Steve]

16. The DNC didn't protect the data for at least 2 months

Now they worry about the barn door?

[Renew Deal]

17. 40 minutes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=920542

There were previous issues. This was a new one that lasted 40 minutes.

[Omaha Steve]

20. They knew for at least 2 months after it was reported

Bernie wanted his stuff protected too.

Now every hacker in the world will be after our bank info from donations.

[Renew Deal]

22. Those were old issues

This was a new one caused by a "code" move.

Hackers were probably already after this info. Nothing is safe on the Internet.

Bank info is not typically part of the voter file. That should be stored elsewhere.

[Omaha Steve]

24. If Bernie and Hillary''s stuff wasn't safe

Nobody's info was safe.

[TheBlackAdder]

40. There is a more serious issue here - a massive IT infrastructure issue!

.


I've bee in IT for several decades, and work with a firm that white labels dozens of corporate clients.


They say the problem was firewall updates: That is complete bullshit.

===


Firewalls are for maintaining integrity from the outside or from internal systems, but is only one layer.

There should be security tokens passed from the end-user to the back-end application, verified at each hop.

These checks are required, just in case someone steals someone's browser session, intercepts the packets from any hop, routing issues in the firewall, back-end system or application glitches.

This addresses the connection issue, why the firewall excuse is bullshit.


===


There wasn't userid authentication taking place at each level, including the back-end system.

Why would an HRC system accept a Sander's userid, authenticate it, and allow it to access the application and the database?


===


I get the feeling that security was not taken seriously, initial signon was allowed and then basic network routing took over for the rest. If that is so, then the IT firm should be civilly liable for gross incompetence, because there are NO BEST PRACTICES in the world that would recommend that!

...and I'm just getting started!


.

[Omaha Steve]

43. Please continue when you can

[Logical]

73. LOL, nice try! nt

[Agschmid]

68. The hackers are after you anyway, nothing is secure.

[Lancero]

50. So by your own admission...

The problem - That is, access to another campaigns data - lasted for 40 minutes.

So the first clause you gave would have needed to be enacted during that timeframe, in order to prevent improper data access. Given the scope of the issue, no one would disagree with restricted access to allow NGPVAN the time needed to patch up this issue.

The second clause would give grounds yes - If it wasn't for the fact that NGPVAN has jumped stories a few times in one statement about what, if any data, was taken. Some articles have them with a new statement - A change from their earlier "Nothing was taken, with one possiable exception", "It would be impossiable for any data to be taken", and "Something might have been taken" - saying that "Yeah, something was taken but it's completely useless information".

Given how much NGPVAN is jumping around on this issue, now saying that the information is useless, enacting the second clause is extremely questionable.

That said, given the exact circumstances the DNC might be finding themselves between a rock and a hard place on clause 2 and whatever contract they have with NGPVAN. If they enacted that clause, then given how sloppy NGPVAN has been handling things and how they allowed a breach of this magnitude to occur this clause would compel them to find a new data firm to manage things.

[dgibby]

56. They also didn't protect it back in 2008, IIRC.

All they had to do to protect the data was to fire the inept company that failed to fix the problem that was reported back in Oct. Of course, considering the incestuous relationships between DWS, HC campaign, and VAN, it's quite possible this was not a mistake at all.

[workinclasszero]

87. They trusted the Sanders campaign

Turns out that was a big mistake.

They see an open door, they walk in and steal everything that ain't nailed down.

Now they know how Bernie operates I'm sure they will take all appropriate safely precautions

[Hepburn]

19. Oh, please...that is not relevant.

Take a clue, OK? You look silly trying to sell this to those of us who understand and work with Contract law. I don't know crap about IT...and I would not even maybe tell and IT person what is what. Try sticking to what you know. Look at the remedies for a breach...the is what is relevant. Specifics control over general contract language...and the SPECIFIC remedies, i.e., the rights of the parties, are listed in the contract. This in NO way alters those specific rights. DWS on behalf of her BFF Hill took and action which was not one of the allowable remedies.

Gads...!

[Ed Suspicious]

27. They should have stonewalled the Sanders' campaign then if they have such a rock solid case.

[Cassiopeia]

29. They didn't act to protect data.

If the DNC had cut EVERY candidate off from the database while security was checked they would have been protecting data.

Instead the DNC chose to restrict only one candidates use of the data.

[Renew Deal]

41. Did they have evidence that other campaigns improperly accessed data?

That's what they got cut off for.

[Cassiopeia]

45. They had evidence that there was an ongoing problem with protections

from data visibility between all the campaigns.

A proper response would have been to isolate everyone to make sure there was no breaches between any campaign.

That tells me this was not about protecting data, it was about punishing a single campaign through improper channels.

[Uncle Joe]

60. The DNC wasn't protecting the data, if the firewall was up the data was secure, if the firewall

was down, then Bernie's information was at risk as well.

If Schultz was an honest broker and she felt compelled to prevent Bernie's campaign from accessing their own data, to protect Hillary's information then the same should've applied to Hillary's campaign to protect Bernie's information.

The DNC's actions were nothing but a punitive reprisal against the Sanders campaign to access their own data.

[Renew Deal]

69. Right, but at the point they knew the Sanders campaign inappropriately accessed Clinton data

The quickest way to protect the data is to remove the Sanders campaign from the system.

[Uncle Joe]

74. "Quick" and just are not the same thing.

This was a systemic vendor flaw and Bernie's information was at risk as well.

Bernie's campaign was cooperating from the beginning having fired the transgressor, even warning the DNC of this chronic firewall security problem in October which was supposed to protect all candidates information.

I still believe an independent audit of both the DNC and the vendor is necessary to determine which campaigns accessed opposing campaign's information.

[libdem4life]

86. So, they report a breach, then would continue to pursue it? Duh.

[Uncle Joe]

83. Who invited anybody to manage this information?

[marmar]

3. More of those inconvenient truths.

The DNC has become a corrupt corporate entity, with little connection to actual Democrats.

[paleotn]

57. Exactly. (nt)

[bigwillq]

4. Kick (nt)

[Renew Deal]

5. Also this was a new breach which only lasted 40 mins

http://blog.ngpvan.com/news/data-security-and-privacy

On Wednesday morning, there was a release of VAN code. Unfortunately, it contained a bug. For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=911109

[stillwaiting]

7. Time for Bernie to take out the trash (at the DNC). Go Bernie Go! nt

[fredamae]

8. Sure seems like the DNC DWS

and HRC wanted this settled NOW after Bernie went to court. Under Oath in Court is the Last place DWS/DNC wants to be....
I Want an investigation into the DNC, DWS and HRC for Starters. Where did she get My phone number? Why have I received calls over the past 3 months asking for Money for the "Hillary Victory Fund"? I'm not signed up with her campaign. Others, I'm "hearing" have been getting emails soliciting funds and are not signed up either.

Fair is fair. "They" manufactured this crises for One reason and one reason Only! IF they had solid evidence? They'd go "balls to the wall" IN court to finish Sanders off, imo!

[SusanCalvin]

34. Interesting.

I don't give my phone number to any campaign, nor to the voter registrar, but I have fairly recently gotten Hillary campaign emails that there's no way I signed up for.

[ChiciB1]

53. I KNOW What You Mean! I Got Called Myself And I'm Actually

a person who donates monthly to Bernie Sanders! I've seen the number come up again and again but never answer anymore. Actually NOW I don't answer ANY call that I don't recognize these days.

Not saying ALL the calls were from their campaign, just thought it was strange the first time. AND I've also gotten polling calls which I no longer answer. Decided it's better to keep them guessing than to let them know who I'll vote for. AND it's also a reason I don't totally believe polling data very much. I KNOW I don't answer.

[fredamae]

61. I don't get polled but If

they called me-I would no longer participate.
We don't know If and How they log our responses.......I have long maintained: Polls are only as reliable as the person who commissions and pays for them is honest. Polls are used to solicit a particular answer to a particular issue-If they don't Like the responses...just drop a few-change a few and Voila! We've got ourselves a Leading candidate and/or Opposition/Support for issue A-B-C. Public opinion is suddenly swayed.
Imo-People are very foolish to hold belief in the credibility of polls as any measure of anything these days....I suspect Corporate owns many of these agencies...

[ChiciB1]

62. To Which I TOTALLY & COMPLETELY AGREE! n/t

[dgibby]

63. I'm not a supporter of her campaign either,

and regularly donate to Bernie, yet my email and FB page are constantly being spammed by her campaign. Since I also didn't support her in 2008 and am not a registered Democrat (although I always vote for the Dem candidate), I find it more than just a little odd that I get more notices from her than I do from Bernie.

[Historic NY]

9. Perhaps but that part was a civil matter what the DNC did...

DWS & the DNC should ask the Justice Dept. to investigate whether or not a cyber-crime occurred. They have reason and belief it did, based on the audit logs and the utterances and actions of the firing of a senior Sanders staffer. Given the lawsuit, its probably the only way to get to the bottom of what happened.

That could settle this once and for all.

[dgibby]

72. As a Bernie supporter,

I'd be thrilled with a DOJ investigation, but I seriously doubt DWS and the DNC would welcome that kind of scrutiny.

[cantbeserious]

13. Keep Dreaming The Impossible Dream - The People Know Better

eom

[seabeyond]

14. Further, it is supposedly the cmpaign of integrity, as they excuse theft, and worse, shift blame to

Clinton. Flat out say she is at fault, did something wrong, is doing it too, whatever..... When clearly it is an empty, hollow accusation being made

[treestar]

64. terrible hide

there have been several posts saying a similar thing! Hard to believe they are taking the position that the DNC made the Bernie aides do it! And trying to hide posts that point out it's a "Mom he made me do it!" defense that is no good.

[seabeyond]

66. Terrible hide. Nt

[Cha]

88. I'm so sorry for your hide, seabeyond.. they cannot handle the truth.

[Plucketeer]

33. ah - yah

keep on dreamin'!

[cantbeserious]

12. Why Is This Citizen Not Surprised

eom

[Vinca]

15. I'm beginning to think Bernie should have run as an Independent.

The Democrats anticipating a coronation have done nothing but try to block his campaign. He agreed the staffer was wrong. He fired the staffer. Bernie is the most honest politician I know and the continued smearing of him makes me rethink my vow to vote for Clinton if she's the nominee in the general. I've really had it and it's not going to personally affect me much if Donald Trump is president.

[reformist2]

18. If Donald Trump is elected, it will be the Hillary crowd that drives us into that ditch.

[ChiciB1]

55. BE CAREFUL About What You Say Here...

There are some new rules about "voting" issues. You probably know them, but thought I would just bring it up again.

[Vinca]

75. Actually, I wasn't aware. Thanks.

It's a shame we can't vent once in a while without offending the tender sensibilities of other posters.

[Vinca]

70. I agree with you completely.

Hillary does not generate the excitement needed to win the general election. I think there's a very real possibility she'll lose. Bernie has captured the vote she needs, but they can't see the forest for the trees.

[Jackilope]

39. Bernie is running because he cares ...

... about We the People.

There is no other candidate that doesn't put corporations first. Period.

DNC is dysfunctional and obviously non partial. Debate schedule is rigged, the system is in place for a coronation of The Inevitable One. The system for who Wall St., banks, and War Inc. wants is in place and Sanders running and generating enthusiasm for those who thirst for change has them scared.

Good. There are more of us than the 1%. If the overwhelming amount of us sick of the current corporate business as usual show up and stare right back -- we eventually will win.

[pangaia]

46. My feeling for a long, long time.

Clinton is running out of ambition.
Bernie is running because he cares about human beings.

[treestar]

65. It does affect others

so it is hard to believe a person who is a liberal would say that.

[Vinca]

71. I'm in a very bad mood.

Given the nastiness from the Hillary camp - virtually calling Bernie a criminal - I don't care if they win or lose at this point.

[libdem4life]

28. DWS###??? Well, it is comical...perhaps relevant.

But what bothers me is the 2 month failure to patch the hole, and the instantaneous blocking of all Sander's date when the hole was reported the Second Time. Masterful IT capabilities/screwups. But seemingly in favor of their former political benefactor.

I'm thinking that if DWS### isn't in some way chastized...not fired, say employed at a lower level or stepping back to stem the flow of Conflict of Interest buzz that is now trending...that HRC will be held accountable. And HRC doesn't like to be held accontable. That's the way of the Pecking Order.

If they investigate the vendor, they have once again, brought up for introspection into the fact of HRCs pals running the place.

There will be hands wringing and hair on fire that Bernie's staff peeked into the glitch...on their own computers. Oh yeah, and they reported it...twice.

Off with the vendor's Corporate head, I say. if HRC and DWS want to emerge in any positive way on this matter. And hopefully Bernie can find a really truly independent vendor. I think that was his greatest faux pas.

[raindaddy]

42. Nice analysis! They stepped in it. Bernie's a nice guy and all but he needs to pursue this...

[libdem4life]

44. Yes...someone surely had the power to almost instantaneously block his entire information

There is no conspiracy theory there. That's fact. Bad move. Informative move. Trigger happy HRC clones were able to accomplish this feat.

If it makes it to the Monday news cycle, we'll know it has feet. If not, MSM business as usual.

Bernie not only got publicity, but more kudos in his staff alerting twice, and acting when he believed his staff acted inappropriately.

That's the difference between the two. Anyone heard of any even verbal chastisement of DWS? Crickets.

[raindaddy]

51. I hope Bernie makes this a focus on tonight's debate... Adding legs for Moday's news cycle.

And that's a good point, issues aside there's a huge difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to integrity! Part of the reason Bernie's doing so well.

Hillary's calculating, defensive personality becomes more ans more obvious over time. That's why we'll be watching a limited number of debates scheduled when the least amount of people will see them.

[libdem4life]

54. I'm hoping for a little less "Mr. Nice Guy". Maybe like, at an appropriate time, reminding

her that he let her off the hook once, but not this time. And even some comment about the wacky debate schedule. One can hope.

[raindaddy]

84. Agreed!

Nice to meet with you here on DU libdem.. I really enjoyed reading your take.

[libdem4life]

85. Thank you...back atcha.

[jwirr]

37. He is her nephew - the son of her brother Keith. I do not

expect DWS to investigate and I will not believe anything she says. The lawsuit is still on going so maybe we will get an independent audit.

[jalan48]

38. I hope Bernie pursues this.

[napi21]

23. Ya know, I never donated to the DNC, only directly to campaigns of my choice.

NOW I know why! I wonder if the DNC will suffer the impact of their misbehavior in their future donations? I sure hope so!

[raindaddy]

25. Here's my question. If the Hillary/DNC camp is so confident in a Clinton nomination.....

why risk alienating millions of Bernie supporters even more than they were before the incident?

They're either scared shitless Hillary's going to lose or stupid...

[SoapBox]

35. Agreed.

Incompetent and arrogant about their blatant fear of Bernie's campaign.

They don't see Democrat...they only see Hill.

[SusanCalvin]

36. Isn't that the truth? Ham-handed handling. nt

[libdem4life]

26. I wouldn't worry...would stand back silently...if I had the deck stacked on the IT site. And yes,

they were her former staffers. Not a Conspiracy Theory...a Conflict of Interest. Huge difference.

[AgingAmerican]

30. Çorruption doesn't adhere to rules

[Attorney in Texas]

31. k+r

[SoapBox]

32. The incompetence and mismanagement at the DNC continues...

[Blus4u]

52. You should post this as an OP.

No comment is necessary.
Entirely too much Clinton connection in this whole stinking mess!
You have a great graphic here.

I saw an earlier thread that denied the family relationship DWS.

Peace

[TryLogic]

47. Why is there no report of Hillary's campaign getting Bernie's data?

Because they are clean, pure, and honorable politicians, or because it was a setup. I suggest they stayed away so the attack could focus on Bernie's campaign, and his strength relative to Hillary -- his integrity.

[oldandhappy]

49. Why am I not surprised.

Control Control Control

Madam Manipulation does it again.

[ChiciB1]

59. I Think The BIGGEST Problem About This Is The Fact

that so many other people from the PAST and PRESENT seem to know things none of us ever knew. I was very surprised about what Bill Press said last night because when I last listened to his program he definitely sounded like a Hillary supporter. AND YET, there he was last night saying things that really surprised me.

AND THEN, there's Axelrod! Seems Bernie is "a first" because one of the first statements put out by DWS was that Bernie would NEVER take this to court! Why was she so over confident??

So many here, not only supporters of other candidates were extremely upset when she was picked to head the DNC! I remember the out cry way back then!

[fredamae]

67. Sept 2014

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrats-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111077

Why do the people who Can toss her - Keep her against "our" will? Curious minds seek the truth.

[ChiciB1]

82. Well, The TIME Is Over Due... The TIME Is YESTERDAY!

Thanks, that was a very good article that I never saw. I can only go on my gut feeling and when it comes to HER, my stomach says BARF!

[libodem]

89. Someone ought to loose her job

At the very least.

[Scuba]

90. Rules are for little people, and anyone else not supporting Hillary.