Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalThey couldn't prove the breadth of it with one query
The vendor could say "that was just one field in one state for a few seconds. No big deal"
By going around to a number of states, by looking at a few fields, by testing the selection array on them and by allowing a number of users access to it with various security levels, then you could better describe the breadth of the security exposure. That what it looks like they did in the log.
In their haste, I do not think the Sanders campaign people understood that -not not fully.
And they did alert people in the campaign sooner than before the breach was closed. It was going up the chain of command in the Sanders campaign when the DNC called.
I'm only seeing Update: 12/19, 9:46PM EST
Is there one more recent than that? That's kind of old news.
That update doesn't establish Weaver lied at all.
The Sanders campaign said, including Josh (the fired data manager on MSNBC I beleive), at the outset on the first day, that the October breaches involved other software vendor(s) - not NGP VAN. I think the Sanders campaign described them or one of them as vendors of modeling software during the first press conference.
Another fact: the breach was well under two hours. Something like 41-47 mins which confirms to me that Politifact couldn't read the logs they link. Therefore, Politifact are not really qualified to link the logs and make a call like they're trying to do. They messed up on some pretty basic stuff there.
In my opinion, Those logs from what I've analyzed back up what Josh was saying. They almost defy it to be any other way without stretching things to unusual expectations to accommodate a theory.
Another thing, Politifact failed to consider the essence of what Sanders was saying -"We didn't go out and take it"- the Sanders campaign didn't break in/cause this security lapse. Nor did they download or seize data (aside from one summary report that the software vendor wasn't freaking out over). I think what they said is mostly true.
I've worked in a variety of databases that use "lists". For publishers, they have something roughly similar to a voter record - a subscriber with name, address, phone number, etc and they generate their lists using unique data fields (like a campaign) to analyze, sell the list to a company who wants to mail a flyer, print mailing labels, etc. Collection agencies have something similar to a voter record - a debtor with name, address, phone number, etc and they generate lists for processing the data to various collectors (kind of like campaign callers), predictive dialers, auto/robodialers etc (like a campaign) There are many applications where people use databases to generate a list of records (just the item identifiers).
When you generate lists, you then nearly always have to do something with that list to get the value out of it. Otherwise, it's just a long string of meaningless unique items IDs (probably voter numbers sequentially assigned as they get added to the database). You might get a count saying X number of records are in that list. But that's it. And the fields they did the actual selections on were so broad and incomplete because they didn't do all the possible selections to get a full array of results. So the lists counts even have limited use. I just don't see much value in it. It would be sufficient to prove the breadth of a security breach like Josh claimed but it lacks anything really sinister - since they didn't download any of these lists or use them to process reports, etc. They just proved they could access Clinton data by generating them which they had to do because they already had access to their own data.
The auditor will ultimately settle this. Politifact most certainly cannot.
Nope, I didn't
And I think she did very, very well. Couldn't have done better.
But that doesn't mean it's over.
The memo that sunk her on Travelgate showed up about 2-3 years after.
These guys are net letting go.
I think it's way too premature to do a victory lap
Two Senate Committees are still looking (at folks Hillary hired, at their emails (which Judicial Watch has sued for), etc and they have a long list of information items (22?) related to Clinton they have not received yet from the State department)
One House Committee is still looking - went overseas to get some evidence
The FBI are still looking (just recovered her IT staffer's computer looking for his deleted emails) and they've found two top secret emails on Clinton's private server
The inspector General is still looking
1/3 of her 55,000 pages of emails have yet to come out
The judgement obtained by the Associated Press still has material coming to them over the next number of months
Some of the existing emails have spun off into looking at her helping her son-in-law and helping Clinton Foundation donors
Clinton's IT person who set up her server has taken the 5th but apparently, he's willing to accept immunity to testify
And the person who wrote "Benghazi Hearing: GOP’s Embarrassing Shame, Clinton’s Triumphant Vindication" thinks it's time for her to do a victory lap?
This game is far from over. It will probably still be going on next fall. You can almost be sure that they'll time bringing her back for questioning during the general election. There's a lot of information to come and they're starting to get some spin offs from it (ie the son-in-law).
Hillary was a Goldwater Girl ...
At college, she was President of the Young Republicans and interned with Republicans in Washington.
By around '69 or '70 she made the transition to the Dems.
Bernie was working on social causes before he was out of high school and went into fighting for civil rights causes (like against segregation) in his early college years.
Bernie Sanders "supported the Iraq War" ???
No he most certainly did not. Those Yea votes were between 2006-2008. Hillary also voted for all three. In 2006, the GOP held the House and Senate. In 2007-08, the Dems had a bare majority in the Senate with 2 independents including Sanders so they were limited.
Feb 2007 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) delivers a blistering speech on the failures of the Bush administration's planning, execution, and understanding of the war in Iraq.
Mar 2007: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduces a resolution in the Senate calling for an end to combat operations in Iraq.
During that time period, Bernie quite clearly laid out his position on the Iraq war consistent with his original vote against it in 2002-3.
When Bernie voted yea on a bill that included funding the Iraq War, funding on that bill also included things like
- the War in Afghanistan
- War against Terrorism
- General Defense
- Unemployment Benefits Extension
- GI Bill
- Relief for Hurricane Katrina
- Housing Reform and Affordability
etc, etc
when they were going to get the funding for Iraq anyway and it's pretty tough to stop funding a war suddenly when you're in the middle of it.
It was one of those silly things Congress does to suck folks like you into thinking Bernie supported the Iraq war. If he voted against the bill, folks like you could get sucked into thinking Bernie was against fighting terrorism, or UI or the GI Bill or Hurricane relief, etc.
The record clearly shows Bernie was consistently against the Iraq war from the outset and most folks aren't going to get sucked into nonsense logic trying to interpret his vote as something else like you're lamely trying to do.
Hillary Clinton spoke out clearly why she supported the legislation authorizing the Iraq war so we're not playing that game there. Without the original authorization it got, none of the votes on the Iraq war that followed would have happened.
"He voted against the resolution when he knew his vote would not make a difference"
That's silly nonsense.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.
One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first.
Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.
He went on record BEFORE the vote and spoke out clearly against the war, providing five reasons why he would not support it. And when we examine the reasons he gave, he was right or proven right on ALL of them. That's not voting no just for fun because it doesn't matter. That is taking a stand and firmly going on the record.
Your candidate, who spoke with shortsightedness and naivety on why she supported the legislation, has admitted it was a mistake because unlike Sanders, she was horribly wrong. Her judgement in the heat of the moment was sorely lacking.
Bernie's 2 million donors giving one dollar each per week ($12.50 per quarter)
matches Clinton's $25 mil in a quarter.
And unlike Clinton donors, they can keep doing that all year without maxing out .. giving the campaign $50 over the year. That is a political movement. 
Every day, I seem to like this campaign a little bit more.
With the other staffers, if you're collecting evidence, you'd want witnesses
Several people's word is better than one persons.
If you're doing something unethical or illegal, like ripping off data, most likely, you're not going to say anything to anyone. I think folks are probably going to want to talk it over and think about it a bit, etc before joining you. But a couple of these folks were up and at it within 3-6 minutes. That's not a lot of time to convince folks "hey, let's steal Hillary's data". It's a reasonable amount of time to explain "there's a security breach, our data is exposed, I want witnesses to document the scope of this breach by doing this = log around into states and select lists on Hillary's fields and save them for proof - don't download anything!"
They exported one summary report of some of Hillary's data and they exported a list generated from their own data in Nevada. So no, they had the ability to export reports and lists.
I really appreciate that you have been polite, respectful, courteous, etc. I have no problem agreeing to disagree ... though I really would prefer to have agreed with you. Thanks.
If I wanted to steal that data quickly
I'm not going to mess around with lists.
I'd already know if I could access it under the software hood (from the sounds of it, one could do that fairly easily).
But let's say he couldn't and wanted to rip off Clinton data. I'd just run a query report in each state with the voter ID and Clinton fields like Priority, Support, Turnout, etc. I'd start with IA and NH and move on through the other states according to campaign priority.-For example, I might not bother with SC until later because Bernie's so far behind there. And then I'd just export those reports as I went.
That would get me complete data for each Clinton field I wanted in each state with one pass through each states data (arguably the fastest path to do this). Then I'd export the reports.
But that's not what he did. He jumped from state to state doing somewhat arbitrary and incomplete lists that he didn't export. It was all over the map. If turnout was the most important field (an article suggested), why isn't there an attempt at a full set of lists for turnout? Why "priority" in one state, "turnout" in another and "support" in another, that are usually incomplete sets of the available selections and inconsistent with what they did in other states.
That behavior strongly looks like someone is kicking tires to find out the scope of the data breach. It does not look like someone is trying to steal bulk data because you wouldn't go about it in the fashion he did. And they didn't export a single list of what they did with Clintons data.
So I'm more firmly in the camp that he was not stealing the data than I was after reviewing all the logs.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,123
