Curious? First NGP VAN data breach and it was Bernie Sanders

[Nasty Jack]

I am still the cynic and I cannot fathom a company that professed a perfect record until this breach in a Politico article claiming this whole thing was just a glitch, an accident. As I reported yesterday, NGP VAN founder, Nathaniel Pearlman, also served as chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign.

There are just too many factors involved, one of which is DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz who had complete control over the whole fiasco. Now there is no doubt that these doofuses in the Sanders campaign should not have looked at Clinton's data; they should have simply reported the incident and this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

Based on my knowledge of campaign political data from 35 years in the junk mail business, my gut tells me Sanders had very similar info and didn't really need Hillary's.

But let's examine the timeline here. The data breach occurred sometime late Thursday or early Friday morning, December 18. The Sanders people noticed the breach but what is not true in the reporting is that the data was accessed over a period of time, that it was exported or retrieved. And much of it was probably already known by the Bernie folks, as I mentioned earlier. But they did what they did, which was wrong, and the shit hit the fan.

Keep in mind that this happened conveniently the day before the December 19, Democratic debate, scheduled (again conveniently?) by Wasserman Schultz on a Saturday when even the most loyal of the voting public is doing just about anything other than watching politicians. Call me a cynic, but the whole debacle is full of intrigue that is long from over and far from being explained.
Posted by Jack Dunning at 2:03 PM

Nasty Jack Blog

[LiberalArkie]

1. Technically the second.

According to the law suit, one happened in the 2008 campaign where (I think it was) Obama's data was leaked to the Clinton campaign.

[TIME TO PANIC]

2. I'm not one for conspiracy theories,

but could any of these staffers involved in the breach be 'moles'?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. Almost sounds Rovian?

Who knows maybe they were paid to do it? One can speculate but it's time to move on.

[TIME TO PANIC]

12. I hear ya.

[PatrickforO]

11. I am. On selected topics, like the Kennedy's, COINTELPRO, Nixon sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks

until after the 68 election, and some other things I won't talk about here, but I do know there are a few select, very rich, very powerful people who call the shots.

And I don't wear a tinfoil hat, either.

[valerief]

15. Try the vendor. nt

[JDPriestly]

23. Right. Sanders' employees queried a database that was part of the database provided to them

by the vendor.

The database should not have been provided to them.

Surely, the DNC required the vendor by contract to maintain the security of each candidate's database and maintain a firewall.

Sanders' campaign did not hack into the database. It was provided to Bernie's staff by a vendor that was either negligent or violated a contractual agreement to protect the privacy of the candidates' information.

Sanders' campaign did not "steal" anything as I understand the facts. They were provided access to a database, access they were not supposed to be provided.

The vendor, it seems to me, is the sole wrong-doer in this situation.

I saw a list of the searches or queries made of Hillary's database by the Sanders employees. They looked like searches that would have identified Hillary's information as hers and as not Bernie's. I realize that Bernie did not like the fact that his staff did that and that Bernie fired them for doing the searches. But I think the real problem was the vendor that was supposed to maintain a firewall.

[Jarqui]

3. The incriminating part for me is that the Sanders campaign reported

two breaches to the DNC in October and in at least one of them, the Sanders campaign felt confident that their data had been compromised.

There was no leak by the DNC to the media in October like there was this time
There was no locking out of the voter file of the offending campaign in October like there was this time because ...
There was no independent audit triggered by the DNC to get to the bottom of these incidents like they're talking about doing for this incident.

And there was even more reason to audit in October: because no campaign had admitted to breaching Sanders data in October nor did they have any assurance they got Sanders data back (if it was taken) whereas this time, the Sanders campaign readily stated what it had done and why.

A lot of fuss to protect Hillary's data this time but very little fuss to protect Bernie's data twice, in very similar circumstances last October - so you can't even count the DNC lack of response in October as a one off thing.

And that is in part why this Sanders techy wanted proof of the at least third exposure of their data - which got him fired. As someone who has worked in IT for decades, the guy has my sympathy. Apparently, the Sanders campaign fired him for not telling them immediately - but he did tell them before the breach got closed off. It was closed 41 minutes after they discovered it.

He said it took them a while (a few minutes) to get a handle on what they were seeing - which to me, is understandable. I still think the guy got the shaft - was a fall guy in this because I would have done what he did:
- figure out a little about what was going on so I could raise the alarm accurately and credibly
- get others to witness it and help get some evidence of the breach to protect the organization I work for - to give them something to prove the breach should they need it

[99th_Monkey]

7. Well said. Thanks for weighing in & lending some perspective on what likely happened. nt

[JDPriestly]

24. Great post!

[grasswire]

4. the fact that Hillary wants it OVER RIGHT NOW...

...indicates to me that there is fire where we smell smoke. There is some criminality or ethical breach on the Clinton side that she wants to go away NOW.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. The DNC certainly changed it's mind quickly!

[Scootaloo]

8. The DNC had no chance in court. everything to lose

The suit was a vey cut and dried breach of contract suit. The sanders campaign had acted in good faith - above their contractual obligations - in firing the staffer, and in response the DNC violated their neutrality agreement with the campaign by suspending access to their own data.

You don't have to be a judge to see that the DNC had no chance of winning that one. Plus taking it to court would have all this other stuff exposed. At the very best, it would mean exposure of some very slipshod internal workings that would be damaging to the DNC's reputation. at hte worst, well, we all know what we suspect of DWS and her cronies, right?

[Jarqui]

10. I have a feeling the Clinton campaign & DNC didn't want a judge overseeing

an audit of what happened to Sanders data last October ...

just a darn solid feeling.

But yes, I don't know what the DNC could respond with in the lawsuit because Sanders had them dead to rights on the contract and losing promptly and decisively wouldn't look good or play well in the media.

There was more BS when I saw DWS explain just before the debate last night why they lifted the block on Sanders data .. she said that the Sanders campaign had finally spoken with her and the Sanders campaign had agreed to an independent audit.

But the Sanders campaign have been speaking to the media (including the fired Josh) and the DNC all along - trying to get their data access back. And one of the first things the Sanders campaign asked for during it's press conference at 1pm yesterday was an audit - not only of this recent event but the prior breaches.

So again, last night, DWS was spewing BS to cover her tracks on why they reinstated the Sanders campaign. The legal facts were what she was doing was a blatant breach of her contract with Sanders and she had no choice but to reinstate them or face serious legal repercussions.

[malokvale77]

14. I feel bad for Josh.

He did what was considered best practice.

There is so much corruption in the DNC.

It's a shame that Bernie Sanders (the most honest man in politics) is being tarred by the Democratic Party.

They've lost me. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Jarqui]

16. I wasn't nearly as efficient in the number words to express what you just said ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=930327

[malokvale77]

19. Your post was wonderful.

I'm efficient, not eloquent.

[grasswire]

20. exactly

You are exactly right. I hope the Sanders campaign continues to press for a complete audit.

[JDPriestly]

25. I agree.

We need an independent investigation of this situation. Why did the DNC blame Sanders' campaign for what was most likely a breach of contract by their own vendor?

[Doctor_J]

9. it does smell funny

Especially since dws went running to the media. Put it this way - this would not happen if someone in Sanders operation was in charge, and if by chance it were, the people responsible for the breach would be fired

[malokvale77]

13. What does this say...

" target="_blank">

Few are fooled.

I'll be fully retired come January. I'm going full out Bernie campaign radical.

[Kalidurga]

22. Clearly some people are in front of the lettering that shows it's a...

PartyForHillbillies

[Uncle Joe]

17. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Nasty Jack.

[BeanMusical]

21. Kick and R

[merrily]

26. The story certainly raises a lot of questions about people on both sides.

I am not exonerating the Sanders' employees. I don't know what their motives were. I don't believe Sanders authorized a breach.

Sanders has gone without that kind of scandal all his life, despite being in politics. I refuse to believe he acquired a new persona this past summer or fall, while running for President.

I've seen some of the posts calling him a criminal and claiming he's been one all his life and I have no words to express how much contempt I feel for that jaw-dropping degree of intentional spin and dishonesty. If I could get a virtual dog to virtual poop on those posts, I would.

Did Sanders' staffers just get over zealous about improving their boss's shot at winning the primary or did someone get to them? I've sometimes gotten so zealous about people I work for that I have to pull myself up short fast if unethical options cross my mind , so I understand that and see it as a real possibiilty. However, corruption of many kinds are not unknown in political circles, either. I don't favor one of my theories over the other.