I was talking about root cause there, in that even if it weren't the case that someone on Sander's staff deliberately took advantage of the breach, if it was someone who just inadvertently accessed something they shouldn't have because the breach existed, that would still likely have led to a shutdown of campaign access for some period of time (assuming they're being consistent). So if that's the kind of penalty you're imposing for inappropriate access, then the entire security model is far from sufficient for the apparent sensitivity of this data and hopefully the tech provider is being equally scrutinized at this point, and perhaps the DNC for accepting such a lax security protocol in the first place.No, the consequences of one campaign intentionally seeing another campaign's data is complete denial of access until the malfeasance is discussed and cleared up, at which point the access will be restored.
Like, I think this is kind of a nothingburger really. They're not going to leave Sanders's access off forever. They're doing it to define some boundaries, and when those boundaries are defined, it will be turned back on.