The debate will be on ABC News at 8 p.m. EST, or is that past your bedtime. Or fire up the VCR.
Ya think?
Iām wondering why any campaign would trust that this would be a safe way to keep their work. I get that they need access to much of the DNCās voter info., etc., and totally get why the DNC should make it available ā¦ but what I have a problem with is trusting that the info any campaign adds to and/or saves (i.e. polling data, focus groups, strategies, etc.) would be 100% safe. Is it that costly to run a database on your own?
Those employees "have reason to be concerned about legal exposure," he said, for what appears to fit the definition of illegal hacking.
They may just have to take one for the team ! ā Hope they get a nice āthanxā in their stockings this year ā
As I said in another thread:
Moments in politics like this one bring a lot of traffic to site like this, and letās not be naive: some of the more truculent trolls are very possibly pretending to be Bernie (or Hillary) supporters. If you donāt recognize the username, and the rhetoric is particularly vitriolic, use common sense. Ask yourself if this person really does represent the āother sideā of the Democratic party, or perhaps the other side of the political Grand Canyon we call America.
That isnāt to say there arenāt very passionate supporters of both candidates who have let their emotions get the best of them, but ask yourself if that āpersonā you are having an uncivil, long-running back and forth with really āfeelsā like a Democrat.
I have to inform you that your security has already been breeched. (Sorry, couldnāt resist.)
Summaries of data logs provided to the AP show the Sanders team spent nearly an hour in the database reviewing information on Clintonās high-priority voters and other data from nearly a dozen states, including first-to-vote Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Some of these voter lists were saved into a folder named āTargets,ā according to the logs. Uretskyās deputy appeared to focus on pulling data on South Carolina and Iowa voters based on turnout and support ā or lack of support ā for Clinton."
Hillary clearly is the one at fault. SMH!
The patch apparently needs a patch of its own.
And the DNC needs a new software vendor. Stat!
Initially I was thinking the lawsuit was an unhelpful escalation. But as they reportedly reached an agreement just before an initial hearing was to take place, it looks like the lawsuit may have actually been helpful in bring things to a head and forcing a resolution as soon as possible.
Of course I havenāt seen the contract in question, so the lawsuit may have been unfounded. But their claim, at least, is that their contract required written notice and a 10 day period to try to work things out before data could be withheld. If thatās true, the DNC might have been concerned that a judge was going to order them to restore access to the data anyway. Even if the language of the contract is not that clear-cut, the desire to avoid a messy court case may still have added to the urgency of resolving the issue.
Or maybe, as some have argued, the timing was coincidental, and the DNC would have restored access to the data today anyway.
As is often the case in these situations, reaching an agreement allowed both sides to declare victory and move on. Which Iām sure is annoying as hell to whichever side is right on the merits of the lawsuit (or both sides, if both really believe their position was the correct one, contractually). But either way, itās better for all parties involved that itās been resolved, at least to the extent that the data access has been restoredā¦
Poop and Turd: This is a funny thread. Glad to see the Sanders/Clinton rift is maintaining a sense of humor.
Firewalls are put in place to prevent campaigns from looking at data maintained by their rivals. But the vendor that runs the system, NGP VAN, said it ran a software patch Wednesday that allowed all users to access data belonging to other campaigns.
Then why didnāt NPG VAN temporarily turn off access to the site while it ran the patch? And donāt tell me itās not possible - MMORPG games do it all the time. Whenever a software patch is done - which is usually once a week, btw - millions of clients are denied access to the game until the patch is complete. It is possible and if the information they are storing is as valuable as everyone is making it out to be, then this vendor should have taken this step.
And no, this is not an attempt to claim the Sanders campaign isnāt responsible for doing something they shouldnāt have - I dealt with that ridiculous argument all day yesterday. Itās an attempt to show that this problem could have been easily avoided through any number of steps. Ugh.
What an absolute clusterfuck! Personally, I believe this whole situation was handled extremely poorly by all parties involved. The actions of all look extremely juvenile and did nothing to win over independent voters, let alone make voters from one side more willing to vote for the other in the general election. Double ugh!
Thank you! Yes please!
The Republicans have made themselves about as unattractive to rational humans as possible in 2016.
- They have insulted African Americans
- They have insulted women
- They have insulted Latinos
- They have insulted Muslims
- They have insulted workers (by being against wage fairness)
- They have insulted every human wishing to continue to live on Planet Earth (Climate Change)
- They have insulted anyone terrified of Holocaust repetitions
I do not have the time or inclination to continue the list beyond what is necessary to make the point of the incredible UGLINESS of the GOP.
The question of 2016 is:
āCan the Democrats snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?ā
[they may be so good at this they may not need Chuck Todd after all ]
i know this has been pointed out a million friggin times, but it drives me bonkers to listen to these assholes just flat out lie about obamaās āinaction and refusal to fightā against isil; not to mention the insanity of their casual mention of nuking xyz opponent of the day.
and the media never once challenges or refutes themā¦ itās all about polling numbers or how tough they areā¦
and meanwhile, republicon support for those end of the planet approaches gains tractionā¦
Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs is avoiding the obvious fact that the DNC is in charge of electing Democrats into office. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, and Bernie Sanders is not.
It is hardly a crime that the DNC āhas its thumb on the scaleā for the leading Democrat in the race. That is their job! Bernie Sandersās spokesperson is missing the part where he assumes that the DNC should be fighting for outsiders like Sanders to triumph over actual Democrats like Clinton! Itās a slight-of-hand we are supposed to not see, I guess.
The Sanders guy and others spent āalmost an hourā perusing specific early state persuadable voters, and now claim they were merely āalerting the software companyā to this firewall breach? That doesnāt sound believable.
I know that the āMost-Punchable-Face-In-Politicsā is Ted Cruz. Itās not even close.
But Chuck Todd deserves an Honourable Mention.
āMehāā¦
I am so over bernie!
Heās become just another old guy yelling at clouds!
this is not the first time this happenedā¦ the question is why did the dnc continue with a vendor who is clearly incapable of providing the safe and secure environment for these campaigns.
I think the short answer is āyes,ā very expensive. And from what I can gather, this shared database system has been used by thousands of Democratic candidates at various levels, without similar data breaches. Or else if there were such breaches, they never came to light.
In any event, I expect the vendorās security measures are going to be reviewed and strengthened. And meanwhile future candidates will probably pay close attention to the contracts they sign with the DNC and/or the vendor, and may be hesitant to participate if the the language in the contract really does allow the DNC to yank access to a candidateās own data without notice, and for an unspecified time frame.
Itās not clear to me that there was any real security justification for yanking the access in the first place, since the reporting makes it sound like the firewall failure that allowed the breech was very brief and had already been rectified, and since the Sanders campaign promptly fired the person responsible for the illicit snooping. But even if we assume that temporarily shutting down access was necessary as a security measure, or justified as a punitive measure, leaving it open-ended ā which amounted to threatening to seriously impede major campaign functions like fundraising and voter contact, for an unspecified amount of time, for an entire presidential primary campaign in the middle of a campaign ā was bound to create a shit-storm. Had they put a time limit on it, say 24 hours, while there would likely still have been some grumbling from the Sanders campaign, there probably wouldnāt have been anywhere near the same level of acrimony, confrontation and brinksmanship. Probably no lawsuit, and a lot less damage to party unity and the prospects of converting as many Sanders primary voters as possible, to Clinton voters in the general.
The Bern-bots are already on the verge of outrage and looking for a reason to shriek at the rest of America just why they will not turn out to vote unless Bernie Sanders is the Dem. nominee! That is the typical course of action for every campaign like this.