Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

jacobinmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#61

Post by mfisher87 »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #26

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. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-takin... 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…

>There's a big difference between Obama and Hillary

Did you mean between Sanders and Hillary? Or are you referring to past election?

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#62

Post by mfisher87 »

tarr11 wrote: post #54
SolarNet wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can he when the company in question and the DNC are both for Hillary. How can they know if there is evidence with out the cooperation of those entities. Hence why they are suing to gain access to those records.

The characterization was that Sanders is "Saturnine" while Clinton is circling the wagons and counterattacking. Clinton said that she was ready to move on from this, while Sanders is looking for an investigation. Since there's nothing else to discover about the Sanders campaign, the public and repeated calls for investigation is presumably to find a smoking gun to prosecute the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the data…

She was ready to move on when someone else got attacked, yes. Why wouldn't she? She only stands to benefit from ignoring the issue, and she stands to suffer for engaging.

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#63

Post by olefoo »

yaur wrote: post #50

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.

If you live and breathe good software engineering practices; it's sometimes hard to realize that the actual practice in industry varies wildly. From shops where everything flows through the CI server to shops where whoever last pushed to production is the source of all user visible bugs...

I have; within the last 6 months, dealt with a team that was reluctant to adopt version control and for whom 'push to production' meant firing up filezilla. They are doing better now but they authored and support several ecommerce apps that handle millions in orders every year.

So, yeah; I believe it.

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#65

Post by skwirl »

venomsnake wrote: post #43
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? Because they firmly believe that she is inevitable , or perhaps even entitled to the nomination. Hell, Hillary talks like that herself: >"I would just ask that when this nomination is wrapped up that they come and join with us to make sure that we don't turn the White House back over to the…

I think that Hilary may be known in the future as the one that lost presidency twice. Pundits are greatly underestimating the anti establishment sentiments in the populace. And the Hilary supporters I know right now are smugger than crosfitting vegans. Hubris is the easiest path to a politician downfall and there is quite a lot of it in Hilary's warehouse. Edit: I also don't think that Bill really wants her to be pre…

>I think that Hilary may be known in the future as the one that lost presidency twice.

What about Romney and McCain?

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#66

Post by mfisher87 »

idbehold wrote: post #51
oceanstone wrote: post #49

Interesting article, though it left out some context. 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 b…

It wasn't the same issue and it wasn't even an issue with the same vendor (NGP VAN).

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. I'm looking for a hard source, but haven't yet found it.

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-breach-co...

"On Reddit, an r/technology thread about the controversy included comment from a self-identified 2008 Obama campaign staffer who claimed such breaches were both common but of limited strategic value:

"As an '08 Obama staffer who used the VAN extensively, it went down like this, "Oh, that's weird. It looks like we can pull lists from Hillary again. Hey Erin, do a quick search..." Then everyone in the office room (there were 4 total accounts who did a search) tried the search too.

Any data they pulled would not have been that useful, especially considering both campaigns use the VAN. They couldn't just turn around and re-enter the Clinton supporters as 5's, etc. That's not how it works ... The breach is a non-issue, however how it is being handled by the DNC (in addition to the way the debates, etc) is the telling issue about how undemocratic the Democratic National Party has become.""

Partway through my search I found one source, not primary, claiming that NGP VAN was not at fault, but that's it. Can anyone find anything else?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2...

"Weaver blamed the DNC and its vendor for failing to protect the data. He said the Sanders campaign contacted the DNC about an earlier firewall failure in October, and he feels “very confident” that some of the Sanders’ campaign data was lost to another campaign then. That system was not controlled by NGP VAN, the company notes."

It's interesting that essentially the same issue has happened with two different systems. Assuming the phrase "firewall failure" is meant the same way... The technical doublespeak is really starting to get on my nerves. The use of the term "firewall," it seems, is explicitly to make people think a "hacking" was done.

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#67

Post by _delirium »

mvc wrote: post #59
mschuster91 wrote: post #8

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! And why is it legal for ANYONE to (ab)use the public voter register for ANY kind of gain, be i…

The people in the database are registered Democrat voters. So presumably they consented to this kind of tracking when they signed up. But isn't the point of this to help the campaigns identify and avoid people like yourself who would not welcome their advances.

It's not quite "signing up", at least not in all states. Not all states have formal voting registration, but since the parties still want to have voter databases in those states, they just infer your likely party preference without you explicitly signing up. In Texas, for example, primaries are open, and you can vote in a different one in each election if you want, but not more than one in the same election. What political parties typically put in their voter databases are people who've voted in their primary in N consecutive elections, typically N=2 or 3. So e.g. if you vote in two consecutive Democratic primaries, you're likely to start getting a lot of D spam (and likewise for the Republican primaries).

But in any case the legal answer is simpler: political calls are explicitly exempt from the various no-call lists and telemarketing laws (in the U.S.), so they don't really need any justification for why they put you on the list.

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#68

Post by eli_gottlieb »

randallsquared wrote: post #52
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it actually means exactly what you think it means: the kind of left-wing revolutionary who fully intends to see some bourgeois heads rolling. As a subscriber, I do think most of us would settle for the abolition of bourgeois class-status rather than bourgeois lives, when it comes to it.

How comforting.

If it was written somewhere that people's stated political ideologies are required to be comforting to others, I could have sued Alan Greenspan and Paul Ryan for millions.

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#69

Post by blisterpeanuts »

mfisher87 wrote: post #61
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #26

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. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-takin... 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…

>There's a big difference between Obama and Hillary Did you mean between Sanders and Hillary? Or are you referring to past election?

It seems to me you could make a case for either one.

Re: What Really Happened With the DNC’s “Datagate”?

#70

Post by samstave »

wernercd wrote: post #56
tarr11 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The characterization was that Sanders is "Saturnine" while Clinton is circling the wagons and counterattacking. Clinton said that she was ready to move on from this, while Sanders is looking for an investigation. Since there's nothing else to discover about the Sanders campaign, the public and repeated calls for investigation is presumably to find a smoking gun to prosecute the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the data…

As if the public needs a smoking gun when the Clinton is surrounded by scandals from A to Z. It amazes me that Sanders isn't going guns-a-blazing with all the Scandals and Corruption that emanates from the Clinton name brand. Why look for the needle in a haystack when you have a stack of needles sitting next to the haystack?

Just look at how many vids exist, even from years ago, of Hillary caught in various lies:

https://www.google.com/search?q=video+of+hillary+lying&rlz=1...

Post reply on HN