There's extremely bad blood between the Hillary and Sanders campaigns, and the Sanders guys think the DNC fabricated a scandal by immediately going public, and possibly set them up.<p><a href="https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-taking-their-fight-with-200738611.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-takin...</a><p>There's a big difference between Obama and Hillary, where he's pretty saturnine about attacks on him even when they get pretty crazy, and she takes things more personally and circles the wagons and counterattacks.
Interesting article, though it left out some context.<p>The Sanders campaign tried to report this issue months ago [1]. Nathaniel Pearlman, the founder of NGP, now NGP VAN, was CTO of Hillary's 2008 run for president [2]. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the DNC, was campaign co-chair of Hillary's 2008 run for president [3]. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Clinton, has criticized the DNC for being biased against the Sanders campaign several times [4] [5].<p>[1] <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/263730-report-sanders-campaign-told-dnc-of-data-issue-months-ago" rel="nofollow">http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/26373...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Pearlman" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Pearlman</a><p>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz</a><p>[4] <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1119794974699764" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1119794974699764</a><p>[5] <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1120402367972358" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1120402367972358</a>
Interesting read, especially for those of us who have no idea what technology is available for candidates these days. Clearly every one of us exists in these databases (I assume the GOP has such a thing too) and are connected to other data like what we buy or what we belong to. Seeing this data is shared between candidates I wonder how easy it would be for people to manipulate the data for the benefit of one candidate or another. All it takes is poisoning the entries and you could mislead a candidate's plans.
Relevant, from a former DNC Tech Director <a href="https://medium.com/@joshhendler/why-the-bernie-breach-isn-t-about-technology-and-what-s-at-stake-c383ee7b840a#.rj1vnicbq" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@joshhendler/why-the-bernie-breach-isn-t-...</a>
A much different take from another person with extensive experience with the system in question:<p><a href="http://iowastartingline.com/2015/12/19/sanders-campaigns-reckless-reaction-to-data-breach-is-a-danger-to-all-democrats/" rel="nofollow">http://iowastartingline.com/2015/12/19/sanders-campaigns-rec...</a><p>The person who wrote the submitted article is a self described socialist. The person who wrote the article I linked to volunteered for the Clinton campaign in 2008.<p>It doesn't matter how much expertise you have in a system when politics is involved. Politics is going to taint your view. There needs to be an independent outside investigation.<p>Personally, I thought the author of the submitted article painted a picture of a serious breach and then tried to downplay it by pointing out that it was not an even more serious.
I suppose "filtered" makes a less exciting headline than "hacked voter database" but wow is there ever a gulf between how this has been covered and what happened. Thanks for this.
This is OT but I wanted to ask before: what does the "Jacobin" in Jacobin Mag refer to? Presumably not the more genocidal fraction of the French Revolution which was my first guess?
The frien-nemy relationship that this database represents is super interesting. So each candidate has their own columns in the database. Does that me that, for example, if the governor of California (Dem) endorses a candidate for president, they will share their columns with that candidate? I'm imagining a crypto-key getting plugged into a Mandrill scrips at campaign HQ, and suddenly the emails get 5% more effective.
This should be used as an example of why the NSA's capturing of 'metadata' is really a problem. It's basically the same thing and is a big deal.<p>Sucks that Uretsky couldn't help himself to get a sense of what the Clinton camp was thinking tho
How on earth is stuff like that legal? Being interrupted in my life by robocalls, cold calls, calls from "statistic polls", people arriving unnoticed at my door to waffle about politicians, mail ads... that's intrusive-as-hell advertising. If I were a US voter, I'd do everything but not vote for anyone intruding in my life!<p>And why is it legal for ANYONE to (ab)use the public voter register for ANY kind of gain, be it personal, commercial or political?<p>(note: I'm from Germany, where politicians aren't totally crazy)
The thing I don't understand here... How you can you write a multitenant app where protecting an EAV store is a critical feature and not have tests that validate that your security still works that run before every deploy.
> The two essential scores are those for support — how likely the voter is to be supportive of the candidate — and “turnout” — how likely the person is to vote (the product of these terms being the likelihood that they turn out and vote for the campaign’s candidate).<p>Is there an assumption then that Support and Turnout are statistically Independent?
Accessing data that was made available to you through the reckless indifference of others, but is still meta-theoretically-philosophically forbidden, is a violation of the CFAA. When will the grand jury indict?
Although a little long this video compilation helps to understand key differences between Hillary and Sanders. These differences can be extrapolated to how both campaigns handled the "datagate". <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ</a>
all of this smells suspiciously of what the RNC did with Ron Paul. What'll really clinch it is if BS gets all the votes, but due to vote tampering (and refusing people at the primaries) Clinton wins.
A great writeup but reading things over the only thing this shows me is Bernie's people are a lot more dedicated. if Clinton's staffers had the same level/type of access as Bernie's staffers to VAN why wouldn't they be doing the same thing? I find it hard to believe that her staffers wouldn't have noticed the data coming up as well, ran a few queries to realize what was going on, and suddenly realized what was going on and possibly make another couple queries to see what the other was doing. But that would be only if they were actually up and active at the hour the upgrade went into place which from reports sounds like they were not.<p>On a side note - wonder what happened to the VAN QA guy?