Senate Sergeant at Arms Investigation: 2 GOP Staffers May Have Broken the Law in Accessing Unprotected Documents

[tnitsuj]

from CNN.COM

I think this is a good indicator of how ethics should not be abandoned because of technology. You wouldn't walk into a music store and steal CD's, and you wouldn't walk into an office and take files off a desk, but somehow it is okay to take them electronically?



Some committee Democrats are calling for a special counsel to investigate the breach, and its Republican chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who employed the staffers, said "odds are" that the matter may be referred to prosecutors.

"I am mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files occurred," Hatch said. "There is no excuse to justify these improper actions."

"None of us would walk into another person's office and take papers from their desk, and this is, in a sense, exactly that."

 

[CaptnKirk]

Those who are partisans to the GOP line will of course blame the Democrats for not securing the data
to keep the 'Operatives' out and excluded from snooping in the files, Watergate - esque.

So if you leave your house and forget to lock a door or window, or if you don't have thick enough
doors with multiple locks and shatterproof glass in the window and a theif breaks in and steals
your property it is your fault that the house was not secure enough ?

These 'Spys' knew exactly what they were doing, and thought that they could get away with it.
Boy, I really am impressed by the 'Party of Intergity', they just don't learn - and neither does the public.

 

[dpm]

I remember when the story came to light someone offered the defense that since the files weren't properly secured they were fair game. Which seems similar to saying that if someone forgets to lock their car door, its ok to take it.

Perhaps its easier to circumvent your moral values, or make excuses to do so, when you are doing something intangible, like downloading a word doc.

 

[sMiLeYz]

The spirit of watergate is still alive in the Republican party I see.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
The spirit of watergate is still alive in the Republican party I see.

The spirit of Racism is still alive in the Democrat party I see.

"...he's dangerous because..."

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

CAD - If you take the time to check, you will find that those old 'Racist Democrats'
changed their party affiliation to REPUBLICAN, except for Byrd.
There was a more willing Coalition of the 'Good-Old-Boys', with cash.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
CAD - If you take the time to check, you will find that those old 'Racist Democrats'
changed their party affiliation to REPUBLICAN, except for Byrd.
There was a more willing Coalition of the 'Good-Old-Boys', with cash.

You must not have read what was in these unprotected files that were accessed.

Read up on the racism in inner chambers

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
CAD - If you take the time to check, you will find that those old 'Racist Democrats'
changed their party affiliation to REPUBLICAN, except for Byrd.
There was a more willing Coalition of the 'Good-Old-Boys', with cash.

You must not have read what was in these unprotected files that were accessed.

Read up on the racism in inner chambers

CkG

Hmmmmm, two wrongs make a right, eh Cad?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
CAD - If you take the time to check, you will find that those old 'Racist Democrats'
changed their party affiliation to REPUBLICAN, except for Byrd.
There was a more willing Coalition of the 'Good-Old-Boys', with cash.

You must not have read what was in these unprotected files that were accessed.

Read up on the racism in inner chambers

CkG

Hmmmmm, two wrongs make a right, eh Cad?

Didn't say it did. I'm just saying the focus is only on one aspect - and traditionally not on what that "side" looks at. I'm not suprised they are getting a pass on this though.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Are you sure it's "racism" Cad? As I posted in your other thread about this (repost?), the democratic memos may be more about political strategy than outright racism. Given that Estrada is hispanic, the hispanic vote is more and more important and that Bush is thought to have picked Estrada in order to pander to the hispanic vote, I'm not entirely sure either way. Much as the black vote is pandered to via affirmative action (among other issues) and could be part of a party's overall political strategy.

Like I said, I'm not convinced either way just yet. Perhaps the dems should steal some republican memos on their political strategeries and we can do a little compare/contrast.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you sure it's "racism" Cad? As I posted in your other thread about this (repost?), the democratic memos may be more about political strategy than outright racism. Given that Estrada is hispanic, the hispanic vote is more and more important and that Bush is thought to have picked Estrada in order to pander to the hispanic vote, I'm not entirely sure either way. Much as the black vote is pandered to via affirmative action (among other issues) and could be part of a party's overall political strategy.

Like I said, I'm not convinced either way just yet. Perhaps the dems should steal some republican memos on their political strategeries and we can do a little compare/contrast.

Lets just say that the exact same memo was written but the sides were switched. I wonder if the (d) would be hammering on the "accessing" or the contents. I know exactly how they'd react. The fall out from this "accessing" is just pure politics from the left. Hell, the contents are racist politics(or atleast they would be if a (R) wrote them)

CkG

 

[Sternfan]

Funny how no one in this thread thinks the GOP memo that Ted the KILLER kennedy released a while back is a big deal but if the dems leave something lying around so anyone can read its a big deal.

 

[sandorski]

Sounds like a job for the RIAA.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sternfan
Funny how no one in this thread thinks the GOP memo that Ted the KILLER kennedy released a while back is a big deal but if the dems leave something lying around so anyone can read its a big deal.

Linky please I think I know what you are talking about but I've forgotten what it was about so searching is near imposible.

CkG

 

[Sternfan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Sternfan
Funny how no one in this thread thinks the GOP memo that Ted the KILLER kennedy released a while back is a big deal but if the dems leave something lying around so anyone can read its a big deal.

Linky please I think I know what you are talking about but I've forgotten what it was about so searching is near imposible.

CkG

Well looks like i got it a bit wrong, seems like it was another memo that the GOP found but the content of the memo was bad for the dems. I guess the dems are leaving there memos all over the place. here is the link.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401290853.asp

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you sure it's "racism" Cad? As I posted in your other thread about this (repost?), the democratic memos may be more about political strategy than outright racism. Given that Estrada is hispanic, the hispanic vote is more and more important and that Bush is thought to have picked Estrada in order to pander to the hispanic vote, I'm not entirely sure either way. Much as the black vote is pandered to via affirmative action (among other issues) and could be part of a party's overall political strategy.

Like I said, I'm not convinced either way just yet. Perhaps the dems should steal some republican memos on their political strategeries and we can do a little compare/contrast.

Lets just say that the exact same memo was written but the sides were switched. I wonder if the (d) would be hammering on the "accessing" or the contents. I know exactly how they'd react. The fall out from this "accessing" is just pure politics from the left. Hell, the contents are racist politics(or atleast they would be if a (R) wrote them)

CkG

So which is worse, Cad? Illegally accessing the documents and then spreading them around the GOP and releasing them to the media? Or the "racist" content of the memos themselves? Aren't you just doing what you're accusing the dems of doing? Oh, the uproar over the accessing is pure politics, but the bashing the dems for the content of the memos is not? -- pffft.

 

[charrison]

Democrats also weak on computer security?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you sure it's "racism" Cad? As I posted in your other thread about this (repost?), the democratic memos may be more about political strategy than outright racism. Given that Estrada is hispanic, the hispanic vote is more and more important and that Bush is thought to have picked Estrada in order to pander to the hispanic vote, I'm not entirely sure either way. Much as the black vote is pandered to via affirmative action (among other issues) and could be part of a party's overall political strategy.

Like I said, I'm not convinced either way just yet. Perhaps the dems should steal some republican memos on their political strategeries and we can do a little compare/contrast.

Lets just say that the exact same memo was written but the sides were switched. I wonder if the (d) would be hammering on the "accessing" or the contents. I know exactly how they'd react. The fall out from this "accessing" is just pure politics from the left. Hell, the contents are racist politics(or atleast they would be if a (R) wrote them)

CkG

So which is worse, Cad? Illegally accessing the documents and then spreading them around the GOP and releasing them to the media? Or the "racist" content of the memos themselves? Aren't you just doing what you're accusing the dems of doing? Oh, the uproar over the accessing is pure politics, but the bashing the dems for the content of the memos is not? -- pffft.

Need to read my posts my dear boy

"Didn't say it did. I'm just saying the focus is only on one aspect - and traditionally not on what that "side" looks at. I'm not suprised they are getting a pass on this though."

Notice where I say there is only focus on one aspect and then look at my other posts which point out the OTHER aspect of this. Kind of trying to make sure both aspects get their due review Ofcourse I know I'm fighting a losing battle because the media and the ~! and ~buts have latched onto this "accessing" part and ignored the damning contents.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you sure it's "racism" Cad? As I posted in your other thread about this (repost?), the democratic memos may be more about political strategy than outright racism. Given that Estrada is hispanic, the hispanic vote is more and more important and that Bush is thought to have picked Estrada in order to pander to the hispanic vote, I'm not entirely sure either way. Much as the black vote is pandered to via affirmative action (among other issues) and could be part of a party's overall political strategy.

Like I said, I'm not convinced either way just yet. Perhaps the dems should steal some republican memos on their political strategeries and we can do a little compare/contrast.

Lets just say that the exact same memo was written but the sides were switched. I wonder if the (d) would be hammering on the "accessing" or the contents. I know exactly how they'd react. The fall out from this "accessing" is just pure politics from the left. Hell, the contents are racist politics(or atleast they would be if a (R) wrote them)

CkG

So which is worse, Cad? Illegally accessing the documents and then spreading them around the GOP and releasing them to the media? Or the "racist" content of the memos themselves? Aren't you just doing what you're accusing the dems of doing? Oh, the uproar over the accessing is pure politics, but the bashing the dems for the content of the memos is not? -- pffft.

Need to read my posts my dear boy

"Didn't say it did. I'm just saying the focus is only on one aspect - and traditionally not on what that "side" looks at. I'm not suprised they are getting a pass on this though."

Notice where I say there is only focus on one aspect and then look at my other posts which point out the OTHER aspect of this. Kind of trying to make sure both aspects get their due review Ofcourse I know I'm fighting a losing battle because the media and the ~! and ~buts have latched onto this "accessing" part and ignored the damning contents.

CkG

If anything, I'm also wondering what these democratic staffers who wrote the memos meant precisely. Did they mean that the dems should filibuster Estrada because he's hispanic (period)? Or did they mean the dems should filibuster because if voted up he would represent a feather in the cap of Bush who has been actively courting the hispanic vote. Take one look at Bush's "amnesty" program to see what I mean.

Meanwhile, the GOP certainly could have requested an investigation into the leak of the memos AND an investigation into any impropriety brought to their attention by the content of the memos. For some reason, they didn't do that. Wonder why?

Finally, have the dems responded in any way to the content of the memos? Have the dem staffers who wrote the memos spoken up at any point?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you sure it's "racism" Cad? As I posted in your other thread about this (repost?), the democratic memos may be more about political strategy than outright racism. Given that Estrada is hispanic, the hispanic vote is more and more important and that Bush is thought to have picked Estrada in order to pander to the hispanic vote, I'm not entirely sure either way. Much as the black vote is pandered to via affirmative action (among other issues) and could be part of a party's overall political strategy.

Like I said, I'm not convinced either way just yet. Perhaps the dems should steal some republican memos on their political strategeries and we can do a little compare/contrast.

Lets just say that the exact same memo was written but the sides were switched. I wonder if the (d) would be hammering on the "accessing" or the contents. I know exactly how they'd react. The fall out from this "accessing" is just pure politics from the left. Hell, the contents are racist politics(or atleast they would be if a (R) wrote them)

CkG

So which is worse, Cad? Illegally accessing the documents and then spreading them around the GOP and releasing them to the media? Or the "racist" content of the memos themselves? Aren't you just doing what you're accusing the dems of doing? Oh, the uproar over the accessing is pure politics, but the bashing the dems for the content of the memos is not? -- pffft.

Need to read my posts my dear boy

"Didn't say it did. I'm just saying the focus is only on one aspect - and traditionally not on what that "side" looks at. I'm not suprised they are getting a pass on this though."

Notice where I say there is only focus on one aspect and then look at my other posts which point out the OTHER aspect of this. Kind of trying to make sure both aspects get their due review Ofcourse I know I'm fighting a losing battle because the media and the ~! and ~buts have latched onto this "accessing" part and ignored the damning contents.

CkG

If anything, I'm also wondering what these democratic staffers who wrote the memos meant precisely. Did they mean that the dems should filibuster Estrada because he's hispanic (period)? Or did they mean the dems should filibuster because if voted up he would represent a feather in the cap of Bush who has been actively courting the hispanic vote. Take one look at Bush's "amnesty" program to see what I mean.

Meanwhile, the GOP certainly could have requested an investigation into the leak of the memos AND an investigation into any impropriety brought to their attention by the content of the memos. For some reason, they didn't do that. Wonder why?

Finally, have the dems responded in any way to the content of the memos? Have the dem staffers who wrote the memos spoken up at any point?

Make sure you read this.

The "staffers" who you say wrote these isn't the issue. The issue is the obvious coordination between the people who actually vote during these judicial appointee proceedings and the "interests" who look like they control the ones who vote.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Who marked up the memos? And why is the "FROM" information redacted?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who marked up the memos? And why is the "FROM" information redacted?

I don't remember the story behind that. There atleast two different "mark ups".

CkG

 

[heartsurgeon]

some interesting new information...apparently

the Republican technology consultant, also discovered that the shared server was wide open and he informed the Democrat system administrator that each party's documents were vulnerable to the other. The Democrats were in the majority so the Democrat systems administrator had control over the shared server and the security protocols. But it appears he did nothing.

the problem only got solved when the republicans became the majority

Different reports and senators have portrayed the accessing to this information as a security "glitch." But the fact is that there was no security to have a glitch. There was no glitch in a firewall. There was no firewall. Files were on a server open to all senators and staff of the Judiciary Committee. There were no protections. This is not the electronic equivalent of physical breaking and entering, as it was portrayed by many senators and newspapers. What happened in the Senate Judiciary Committee was the electronic equivalent of leaving the files in the Capitol rotunda.

The negligence is made more evident given all that could have been done to protect the so-called confidential documents. They could have assigned passwords for accessing files, whole directories, well beyond the password to the server itself. At the very least Democrats could have put "Democrat Eyes Only" at the top of every document. Simple security mechanisms were readily and freely available to Democrats. In fact, poor security of this scale suggests that the Judiciary server could have been easily accessed by any outside hacker.

ah yes, sometimes the truth is even stranger than fiction!

linky