Support NeoGAF

[royalan]

At this point, it's not really a technical matter - it sounds like there was a hole in NGP VAN that a child could walk through. I think all that really matters is intent, and that's always hard to judge. Uretsky had a very strong motive for proving to the DNC that there was a security flaw - if he could access the Clinton campaign data, then the Clinton campaign could just as easily access the Sanders campaign data. Then again, the searches that senior DNC officials leaked did not look like simple proof-of-concept searches, those appear to be targeted to benefit the Sanders campaign. It really boils down to whether you're willing to assume goodwill on someone's part and there's evidence both ways.

It mostly just chafes my ass that this whole thing could have been avoided if somebody at NGP VAN had written an integration test. Good job, guys.

I'm still catching up on this story, but from what Im reading, there's way more evidence going one particular way if you consider the search inquiries and the fact that access to Hilary's data was passed on to multiple accounts/staffers.

It's going to be a reach to claim the intent was noble here.

 

[mre]

Thanks, I appreciate it.

In a way it sounds like they hope to take advantage of technicalities?

Just does not make much sense unless the entire point of the lawsuit is to try to appear anti-establishment. Which, I don't think explains much of Bernie's support. While this thread has certainly show it is the cause for some of his support.

To me the election on the Dem side has been the pragmatist versus the idealist.
Both sides of which have valid arguments.

Meanwhile the Republican side has been the Idealist versus the Insane.

Depends upon what you mean by a technicality. We're talking about a contract dispute here, and the contract terms actually seems to support Sanders' position here.

The politico posted the lawsuit and the contract is an attachment to it: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000151-b72f-d1ae-add5-f76f14db0001 The contract starts on page 13.

Essentially, Sanders' main point is that the DNC breached the contract by terminating it in the manner they did. The contract has a right to cure provision, which means if the DNC alleges that Sanders' campaign violated the terms of the contract in any way the DNC can't just terminate the contract (i.e., terminate the Sanders' campaign access to the data). If the DNC wants to terminate the contract, they have to follow the right to cure provision (paragraph 5b), which states that if one party alleges a breach by the other party, they have to notify the other party in writing and give them 10 days to cure or make right the breach. The DNC obviously did not do this, thus the allegations by Sanders that the DNC breached the agreement.

 

[ephemeral garbage]

It's going to be a reach to claim the intent was noble here.

Yeah, that's why I wouldn't go so far as to claim it. I don't know what Uretzky's deal was, but it certainly didn't look good, and Bernie was completely right to fire him.

I tend to be more sympathetic than most towards people accused of hacking, because historically it's happened again and again that an organization with an embarassing security hole will accuse a pentester of hacking to distract attention from their own failure. That is bias that I have, so I'm obligated to remain conscious of it.

 

[legacyzero]

Bounce back Bernie!

 

[lednerg]

DNC Vice-chair Tulsi Gabbard was on CNN about an hour ago saying the Sanders campaign should be given access to their data.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

DNC Vice-chair Tulsi Gabbard was on CNN about an hour ago saying the Sanders campaign should be given access to their data.

Odds are they will soon. I doubt anyone is interested in dragging this affair out.

 

[Foffy]

DNC Vice-chair Tulsi Gabbard was on CNN about an hour ago saying the Sanders campaign should be given access to their data.

Didn't Gabbard give Schultz shit for the debates and how she's handled the DNC? Pretty weird that the vice-chair stands totally against her. If I remember, Schultz disinvited Gabbard to something after she said six debates were too few, and they are. Very petty action from a very petty leader of what's supposed to be the party of reason.

 

[docbon]

I just want this shit to be over before it tears the party apart.

 

[N.Domixis]

people need to vote for Hilary, dont you guys want to make history and get a female president? We have had enough men, time for change.

 

[inner-G]

people need to vote for Hilary, dont you guys want to make history and get a female president? We have had enough men, time for change.

I wouldn't vote for someone based on their gender - that's sexism.

 

[noshten]

people need to vote for Hilary, dont you guys want to make history and get a female president? We have had enough men, time for change.

Maybe start a thread about that instead of posting here, I don't think this is the appropriate thread to discuss how people should vote for Clinton because she is woman?

 

[Vampire On Titus]

people need to vote for Hilary, dont you guys want to make history and get a female president? We have had enough men, time for change.

I think a few more men before I'm ready.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

I wonder how big the backlash for this will be?

 

[danm999]

Has Sanders himself made any comment on this at any point?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Depends upon what you mean by a technicality. We're talking about a contract dispute here, and the contract terms actually seems to support Sanders' position here.

The politico posted the lawsuit and the contract is an attachment to it: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000151-b72f-d1ae-add5-f76f14db0001 The contract starts on page 13.

Essentially, Sanders' main point is that the DNC breached the contract by terminating it in the manner they did. The contract has a right to cure provision, which means if the DNC alleges that Sanders' campaign violated the terms of the contract in any way the DNC can't just terminate the contract (i.e., terminate the Sanders' campaign access to the data). If the DNC wants to terminate the contract, they have to follow the right to cure provision (paragraph 5b), which states that if one party alleges a breach by the other party, they have to notify the other party in writing and give them 10 days to cure or make right the breach. The DNC obviously did not do this, thus the allegations by Sanders that the DNC breached the agreement.

Did the DNC actually terminate the contract though? It sounds like they blocked access while the investigation was being performed but they made it sound like it was temporary rather than a termination of their contract. Anything in the contract states that they can't temporarily block access to data?

 

[noshten]

Did the DNC actually terminate the contract though? It sounds like they blocked access while the investigation was being performed but they made it sound like it was temporary rather than a termination of their contract. Anything in the contract states that they can't temporarily block access to data?

If they block the data it should have been 10 days after alerting Sander's campaign about it.

The Agreement does not permit the Defendant to suspend or terminate service to Plaintiff in the absence of ten days’ written notice to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s failure to cure any
breach or default within a period of ten days.

 

[Cerium]

Damn right.

In a shift of strategy hours before the third Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton’s campaign went for Bernie Sanders’ jugular, accusing his team of stealing valuable campaign data, misrepresenting what happened and inflicting “damage here that cannot be undone.”

The offensive came after the Sanders camp admitted its staffers reviewed, searched and saved data from Clinton’s voter file made accessible briefly Wednesday because of a data breach -- and it represented a complete shift of tone in the Democratic race where the hits have remained impersonal and focused on the issues.

“This was not an inadvertent glimpse into our data,” campaign manager Robby Mook charged on a conference call with reporters Friday night. “The staffers did not make a mistake -- they made 25 intentional searches of our data.” He said the breach struck at the heart of the campaign’s data “that took millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours to build. The voter file...is the fundamental basis of our strategy.”

And Clinton’s team was angry that Sanders tried to fundraise off the incident by acting like he was a victim of the Democratic National Committee. “Stop politicizing and work to ensure that what took place is remedied,” Mook said, even dropping that Sanders campaign may have broken the law.

The offensive play didn’t end there.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon followed with more personal attacks, accusing Sanders’ team of undertaking a “deliberate effort to muddy the waters as to what is going on here” and said their top campaign officials were leaving “wiggle room in their answers” as to whether they have retained any data that was accessed during the 40-minute breach.

 

[royalan]

Damn right.

People can hate Hillary all they want but, honestly, where's the damn lie?

They can try to spin this "Poor Bernie getting picked on by the DNC" all they want, but that doesn't change anything. Fact of the matter is Bernie's team got caught doing some very wrong shit.

 

[Dude Abides]

Damn right.

This is dumb. Bernie isn't a threat. She should just take the high road.

Did the DNC actually terminate the contract though? It sounds like they blocked access while the investigation was being performed but they made it sound like it was temporary rather than a termination of their contract. Anything in the contract states that they can't temporarily block access to data?

The contract gives Bernie's campaign the right to access the data. By denying access they've breached the contract.

 

[NullPointer]

People can hate Hillary all they want but, honestly, where's the damn lie?

They can try to spin this "Poor Bernie getting picked on by the DNC" all they want, but that doesn't change anything. Fact of the matter is Bernie's team got caught doing some very wrong shit.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the DNC gets to withhold their own data, effectively crippling their campaign. The DNC is seriously overreaching here, and its not going to end well.

Bernie is right to take it to em. Its not like he has a real choice here.

How would Hillary respond if the roles were reversed? Though, with her established backing, she doesn't need to push each day as much as the Sanders campaign does.

 

[RustyNails]

This is dumb. Bernie isn't a threat. She should just take the high road.

Completely agreed.

 

[Claude Augario]

This is why you don't hire Sanders fans to run Sanders' campaign.

 

[noshten]

Honestly Debbie Wasserman Schultz should just hand in her resignation, especially after confirming that there was a previous instance of this occurring and Sander's campaign reporting it to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Rk-jmgMyA

Spoiler

Unless it was her plan all along to finance Bernie's campaign with 600K per day, in which case she can continue what she is doing.

 

[Kusagari]

Hillary should have stayed the high road and just issued some generic responses or flat out called for the DNC to give the access back.

She has absolutely nothing to gain from going on the offensive here. Her campaign is fucking up.

 

[danm999]

This is dumb. Bernie isn't a threat. She should just take the high road.

Pretty much. Sanders campaign has taken a huge black eye from all this, no need to pile on.

 

[royalan]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the DNC gets to withhold their own data, effectively crippling their campaign. The DNC is seriously overreaching here, and its not going to end well.

Bernie is right to take it to em. Its not like he has a real choice here.

How would Hillary respond if the roles were reversed?

Well, if the roles were reversed, I don't think Hillary would get nearly the same public support that Bernie is getting on this. Right or wrong, something like this would play right into what a lot of people would want to believe Evil Corporate Hillary! would do.

I don't necessarily disagree that withholding Bernie's data is a bit of a drastic response, but at the same time what else can they do? It hardly seems fair to let Bernie continue to campaign with only minor consequences after his team got caught stealing a peek at Hillary's hand. Sure, he fired some folks, but it's a bit late for that to be an adequate response.

 

[B-Dubs]

This is dumb. Bernie isn't a threat. She should just take the high road.

I'd agree, if Bernie wasn't fundraising off of it. Dude's campaign got in trouble swiping data they weren't supposed to and they spun it so that they could now raise money off it. That's not a good look at all and frankly deserves to be called out as such. It's a scummy move and he's supposed to be above that shit.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

We [mostly] all agree Bernie is no threat. So why would it matter what Hillary said? High road or not? It just doesn't matter because she's getting the nom.

 

[ivysaur12]

Well, if the roles were reversed, I don't think Hillary would get nearly the same public support that Bernie is getting on this. Right or wrong, something like this would play right into what a lot of people would want to believe Evil Corporate Hillary! would do.

I don't necessarily disagree that withholding Bernie's data is a bit of a drastic response, but at the same time what else can they do? It hardly seems fair to let Bernie continue to campaign with only minor consequences after his team got caught stealing a peek at Hillary's hand. Sure, he fired some folks, but it's a bit late for that to be an adequate response.

I'm sort of the same mind. I think the right thing for the Hillary camp to do, though, would say that they're in contact with the DNC to see what was breached, blah blah blah, trust the DNC process, blah blah blah, work with the Sanders campaign or something to that effect.

I don't think this is about piling on, I think this is a genuine anger from Mook's team at Sanders's team. Rightfully so, especially after he decided to fundraise off of it. But it probably shouldn't come across as piling on.

 

[Zornack]

Honestly Debbie Wasserman Schultz should just hand in her resignation, especially after confirming that there was a previous instance of this occurring and Sander's campaign reporting it to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Rk-jmgMyA

Spoiler

Unless it was her plan all along to finance Bernie's campaign with 600K per day, in which case she can continue what she is doing.

There was a previous instance of staffers spending 40 minutes searching 25 times in another campaign's data? Oh, there wasn't? Weird.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'd agree, if Bernie wasn't fundraising off of it. Dude's campaign got in trouble swiping data they weren't supposed to and they spun it so that they could now raise money off it. That's not a good look at all and frankly deserves to be called out as such. It's a scummy move and he's supposed to be above that shit.

Who cares if he's fundraising off of it? She's got a commanding lead. Acting like this is a big deal makes it look like a real race when it isn't and plays into Sanders' fans theories of Hillary + the big bad DNC out to squash poor Bernie.

 

[Piecake]

This is dumb. Bernie isn't a threat. She should just take the high road.



The contract gives Bernie's campaign the right to access the data. By denying access they've breached the contract.

Taking the high road is when you don't lower yourself to respond to some petty insult. Ignoring or downplaying when another party steals important data that is apparently worth millions of dollars just makes you look weak and will look very bad in the general election.

"If you arent willing to stand up to cyber theft from your own party, why should we expect you to stand up to the Chinese/whoever when they are caught in a cyber attack?" - Republican candidate.

 

[Cerium]

I don't think this is about piling on, I think this is a genuine anger from Mook's team at Sanders's team.

Exactly. I'd be pissed too.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't necessarily disagree that withholding Bernie's data is a bit of a drastic response, but at the same time what else can they do?

Give them access to their own data - the firewalls are all in place. The man responsible has been sacked. Investigate the incident and work out any further steps, but sabotaging a campaign isn't reasonable.

I mean, whats the end-game here? The DNC finds evidence that the breach was ordered from the top? If so, the Sanders campaign having access to their own data right this moment wouldn't save them from that kind of fallout.

 

[B-Dubs]

Who cares if he's fundraising off of it? She's got a commanding lead. Acting like this is a big deal makes it look like a real race when it isn't and plays into Sanders' fans theories of Hillary + the big bad DNC out to squash poor Bernie.

It's a total dick move. They've got every right to be angry, they're the ones who have been wronged in this situation and now the people who did them dirty are using it to their advantage and taking almost no responsibility. I can't blame them, you can only turn the other cheek so much.

 

[Arkeband]

It's a total dick move. They've got every right to be angry, they're the ones who have been wronged in this situation and now the people who did them dirty are using it to their advantage and taking almost no responsibility. I can't blame them, you can only turn the other cheek so much.

They took responsibility, but it's not the DNC's place to lock them out of their voter database unless doing so presents a threat to Hillary's data.

Since that's not the case, locking them out is a punitive farce. If damage was done, damage was done, not letting them see their own data serves no purpose.

 

[ElectricThunder]

I'll give Sanders credit for running a campaign longer than 2008's only maverick candidates on the Democratic side(the last time there actually were any) before everything came crashing down around him despite his efforts/message/etc---but at this rate given the DNC and general circumstances, it is looking more likely by the hour that he's pretty well been given the Gravel/Kucinich treatment in terms of the collective cold shoulder by the party apparatus at large. He's no "Ron Paul" situation---no matter how bizarrely people want to frame that narrative instead of the actually relevant prior 2 gentlemen that actually ran the Democratic primary gauntlet...Paul's "niche" actually won out ultimately in terms of fleecing a good deal of cash and greasing a path for Rand and his ilk to continue doing much the same alongside shallow, but pervasive, mindshare. Sanders is just out there on his own as per the other two without some deeper mechanism to leave active in his wake like Gravel's ill fated NI4D or Kucinich's....outright desperation...to get out of the then growing "accepted" pace and actionable morals of the Bush years and the deepening corporate slide of the Democrats alongside the party pretty much forcing him out of his area.

Unless folks cool off right quick heading into the weekend and take a step back, I can't fathom any sort of upbeat resolution given how incredibly damn strange and surreal this has become just today alone. I mean, Christ, this is 2015 and THIS is the sort of thing going on versus the likes of the head-shaking assortment of Trump and whatnot?

 

[pigeon]

It's a total dick move. They've got every right to be angry, they're the ones who have been wronged in this situation and now the people who did them dirty are using it to their advantage and taking almost no responsibility. I can't blame them, you can only turn the other cheek so much.

I dunno, man. The entire point is that Hillary's team is supposed to be the one that's good at this. Pushing hard on this is a political misstep and I want them to do the smart thing no matter how mad they might be.

 

[royalan]

I'm sort of the same mind. I think the right thing for the Hillary camp to do, though, would say that they're in contact with the DNC to see what was breached, blah blah blah, trust the DNC process, blah blah blah, work with the Sanders campaign or something to that effect.

I don't think this is about piling on, I think this is a genuine anger from Mook's team at Sanders's team. Rightfully so, especially after he decided to fundraise off of it. But it probably shouldn't come across as piling on.

I can agree with this.

Give them access to their own data - the firewalls are all in place. The man responsible has been sacked. Investigate the incident and work out any further steps, but sabotaging a campaign isn't reasonable.

I mean, whats the end-game here? The DNC finds evidence that the breach was ordered from the top? If so, the Sanders campaign having access to their own data right this moment wouldn't save them from that kind of fallout.

If anybody's campaign has been sabotaged, I think it's Hillary's. She's the one now having to go into several key states knowing that her competitor has insight on her strategy that he has no right to because it was literally stolen. Screw the fact that she's leading anyway, that shouldn't make it any more OK.

 

[noshten]

There was a previous instance of staffers spending 40 minutes searching 25 times in another campaign's data? Oh, there wasn't? Weird.

That doesn't matter if she overstepped her jurisdiction and stopped Bernie's campaign access to data, what she did means she and the DNC are liable

 

[Piecake]

They took responsibility, but it's not the DNC's place to lock them out of their voter database unless doing so presents a threat to Hillary's data.

Since that's not the case, locking them out is a punitive farce. If damage was done, damage was done, not letting them see their own data serves no purpose.

I'd hardly call what they did taking responsibility. They attempted to use the incident to their own advantage while downplaying their own role, but when more information came out that made it very clear that it was a theft strategic campaign data by at most 4 people they fired the main guy responsible. That is damage control. Taking responsibility would have admitted they fucked up immediately, pledge to return the data immediately, and fire the party responsible for doing this.

 

[Arkeband]

I can agree with this.



If anybody's campaign has been sabotaged, I think it's Hillary's. She's the one now having to go into several key states knowing that her competitor has insight on her strategy that he has no right to because it was literally stolen. Screw the fact that she's leading anyway, that shouldn't make it any more OK.

I still don't understand what kind of secretive strategy she would be cooking up that Bernie would take advantage of. Locations for speeches? Timetables he could book places before she books them?

Hillary has already adopted completely new platforms and views this campaign. Bernie has 'pulled her left'. She's going to get the nomination on brand name alone. Everyone knows Hillary, nobody knows Bernie.

Seriously, what's a real life example of a thing Bernie can actually do to hurt her campaign with this data?

I'd hardly call what they did taking responsibility. They attempted to use the incident to their own advantage while downplaying their own role, but when more information came out that made it very clear that it was a theft strategic campaign data by at most 4 people they fired the main guy responsible. That is damage control. Taking responsibility would have admitted they fucked up immediately, pledge to return the data immediately, and fire the party responsible for doing this.

They released the usernames that accessed the data and that one guy said 3 of them were his. And once data is insecure, they could have a billion copies of it, this whole 'return the data' thing makes it seem like it's a physical commodity. There's nothing that can be done.

So what you're saying is you agree with the lockout as a form of punishment, even though the contract clearly states they can't do that?

 

[Cerium]

I still don't understand what kind of secretive strategy she would be cooking up that Bernie would take advantage of. Locations for speeches? Timetables he could book places before she books them?

Hillary has already adopted completely new platforms and views this campaign. Bernie has 'pulled her left'. She's going to get the nomination on brand name alone. Everyone knows Hillary, nobody knows Bernie.

Seriously, what's a real life example of a thing Bernie can actually do to hurt her campaign with this data?

Read the OP.

Two senior Democrats familiar with the program and the investigation told CNN that the Sanders campaign accessed turnout projections for Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, a key piece of strategy the Clinton campaign has been working on with modeling and analytics.

The Sanders team, which consisted of four people, ran multiple searches in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and about 10 March states, including Florida and Colorado. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign has ranked voters on a scale of 1-100 for turnout, enthusiasm and support, the senior Democrats said. The Sanders campaign ran two searches: "Show me all the Clinton people rated higher than 60" and "Show me all the people rated less than 30." This would be a key way of knowing who Sanders should target in the final weeks before voting: Ignore those above 60, while focus on those below 30, because they are looking for a Clinton alternative and might be open to Sanders.

 

[Arkeband]

Read the OP.

How does he target those specific people? Cold calls?

 

[CDX]

I'm sort of the same mind. I think the right thing for the Hillary camp to do, though, would say that they're in contact with the DNC to see what was breached, blah blah blah, trust the DNC process, blah blah blah, work with the Sanders campaign or something to that effect.

I don't think this is about piling on, I think this is a genuine anger from Mook's team at Sanders's team. Rightfully so, especially after he decided to fundraise off of it. But it probably shouldn't come across as piling on.

That's how I see it. Mook and the Clinton staff probably genuinely feel pissed off that someone from the Bernie camp stole, and THEN the campaign framed it and used it as a fundraising opportunity.

Give them access to their own data - the firewalls are all in place. The man responsible has been sacked. Investigate the incident and work out any further steps, but sabotaging a campaign isn't reasonable.

I mean, whats the end-game here? The DNC finds evidence that the breach was ordered from the top? If so, the Sanders campaign having access to their own data right this moment wouldn't save them from that kind of fallout.

Give them access to their own data? Ever since last night I've always understood they could get access again as soon as they provided a full account of what happened, & assurances it wouldn't happen again and that they've deleted the data.

But the Bernie campaign chose not to do that. They chose to go scorched earth and file a lawsuit. And use it to assert their anti-establishment image and fundraise off it.

The question in my mind is Why doesn't the Bernie campaign want to give the DNC a detailed account of what happened and assurances it wont happen again What is unreasonable with that?


Also only 1 responsible man was sacked. According to the press there was AT LEAST one other person involved. Russell Drapkin is presumably still with the Sanders campaign.

 

[Cerium]

How does he target those specific people? Cold calls?

GOTV operations go door by door. I was on the ground in Florida in 2012. This data would tell them exactly where to find these voters.

 

[noshten]

How does he target those specific people? Cold calls?

Difficult for them to do cold calls if they only have a single page report containing a summary:

NGP VAN said the Sanders staff involved were able to "search by and view [but not export or save or act on] some attributes that came from another campaign." The company said the Sanders campaign saved a "one page-style report containing summary data."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/da7e...ring-sanders-team-accessing-data-after-breach

Give them access to their own data? Ever since last night I've always understood they could get access again as soon as they provided a full account of what happened, & assurances it wouldn't happen again and that they've deleted the data.

But the Bernie campaign chose not to do that. They chose to go scorched earth and file a lawsuit. And use it to assert their anti-establishment image and fundraise off it.

The question in my mind is Why doesn't the Bernie campaign want to give the DNC a detailed account of what happened and assurances it wont happen again What is unreasonable with that?


Also only 1 responsible man was sacked. According to the press there was AT LEAST one other person involved. Russell Drapkin is presumably still with the Sanders campaign.

You missing the fact that they cannot stop Sanders campaign's access without a 10 day written notice.

 

[Arkeband]

The question in my mind is Why doesn't the Bernie campaign want to give the DNC a detailed account of what happened and assurances it wont happen again What is unreasonable with that?

The database software logs activity, what other "Detailed Account" would provide clearer information? Do they need surveillance camera footage of the guy in the act?

 

[NullPointer]

She's the one now having to go into several key states knowing that her competitor has insight on her strategy that he has no right to because it was literally stolen. Screw the fact that she's leading anyway, that shouldn't make it any more OK.

Clinton leading doesn't make dirty tricks that target her campaign OK, it just means she could weather more of a storm if the situation was reversed. Its zero sum.

Not knowing the extent of the implied damage to the Clinton campaign myself I'm fine with an investigation and punitive measures as necessary if those are warranted afterwards. That's entirely reasonable. What is not reasonable is to shut down the Sanders campaign until some unspecified time purely as a defacto punitive measure. It only hurts the party to go nuclear right from the get-go, and it will only further entrench both sides and unleash the acrimony.

Let that independent review go forward. They'd know soon enough if the data was kept and being used, wouldn't they? And if that's not something that could be determined quickly, or at all, then just when does this suspension lift?

 

[Cerium]

Difficult for them to do cold calls if they only have a single page report containing a summary:



http://bigstory.ap.org/article/da7e...ring-sanders-team-accessing-data-after-breach

This again? It's a semantic defense by a company trying to cover their ass. What they don't mention is that while viewing this data Sanders' team could copy and paste or print screen just as easily, which is exactly what they ADMITTED to doing. They created 24 lists FROM SCRATCH using the data they viewed during this time. They had a 4 man team devoted to this effort. Please stop muddying the waters on this.