GOP Steals Dem Files: Watergate Redux

[subgenius]

There's probably a thread on this already but I couldn't find it:

2 GOP staffers pilfered memos, investigators find

Two Republican staffers breached lax electronic security and distributed thousands of Democratic memos about judicial nominees to the GOP, a Senate probe finds.

BY HELEN DEWAR

Washington Post Service


WASHINGTON - A three-month investigation by the Senate's top law enforcement officer found a systematic downloading of thousands of Democratic computer files by Republican staffers over the past few years as well as serious flaws in the chamber's computer security system.

The report released Thursday by Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle noted that two former Senate GOP staff members -- including the Republicans' top aide on judicial nomination strategy -- were primarily responsible for accessing and leaking computer memos on Democratic plans for blocking some of President Bush's judicial nominations.

Pickle made no recommendations about whether to pursue criminal prosecutions, but he cited several federal laws, including statutes involving false statements and receipt of stolen property.

Pickle and his investigators said forensics analyses indicated that 4,670 files had been downloaded between November 2001 and spring 2003 by one of the aides -- ''the majority of which appeared to be from folders belonging to Democratic staff'' on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said at least 100 of his computer files were also accessed by the GOP aides.

The report identified the two former staffers as Jason Lundell, a nominations clerk who originally accessed the files, and Manuel Miranda, a more senior staff member and later the top aide to Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., on judicial nominations. Miranda, the report said, advised Lundell and was said by other aides to have been implicated in leaking the documents to journalists or other parties outside the Senate. Miranda had previously denied leaking the materials.

Both men left their Senate jobs during the investigation.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8110216.htm

[crackmonkey]

From what I recall, the memeos were primarily tactical plotting by the Dems to derail minority nominees because they would be too politically advantageous to the Reps. Shouldn't this kind of unethical behavior be reported? Why aren't these aides seen as whistleblowers?
Also, I have read that there was no 'stealing' or 'hacking' as such - the files were easily retreived by anyone with access to the server. In effect, you merely had to open a folder.

[corplinx]

at watergate there was a breakin you twit, stop being a tool

[Agammamon]

The problem with the theft theory is that the files were never secured in the first place. These guys didn't have to break in, hack in, exploit a flaw in security (except for an incompetant sysadmin). Rather than breaking in and stealing file this case is more like the guys found the files laying around in the lobby and kept them.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Agammamon
The problem with the theft theory is that the files were never secured in the first place. These guys didn't have to break in, hack in, exploit a flaw in security (except for an incompetant sysadmin). Rather than breaking in and stealing file this case is more like the guys found the files laying around in the lobby and kept them.

That´s still theft.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
From what I recall, the memeos were primarily tactical plotting by the Dems to derail minority nominees because they would be too politically advantageous to the Reps. Shouldn't this kind of unethical behavior be reported? Why aren't these aides seen as whistleblowers?
Also, I have read that there was no 'stealing' or 'hacking' as such - the files were easily retreived by anyone with access to the server. In effect, you merely had to open a folder.

I have not read the article yet, but what you are describing is still hacking if they were not authorized to be viewing those files. It's the same as walking into somebody's house and taking things because their door was not closed.

[crackmonkey]

It sounds to me more like someone leaving the files on a table in the house that you both share...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It sounds to me more like someone leaving the files on a table in the house that you both share...

Actually more like in MY room of the house that is shared.

[crackmonkey]

No, it was MY room. And I'm sick of you leaving your socks on the floor.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
No, it was MY room. And I'm sick of you leaving your socks on the floor.

When you pay your rent on time we'll talk :p

[TillEulenspiegel]

It's funny to see Moral absolutists become relativists when the villain is one of their own <laughs and shakes head >

[JesFine]

This article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31803-2004Mar4.html) is an expanded version of the one in the original post. From it: According to Pickle's report, Lundell learned how to access the files by watching a systems administrator work on his computer.This implies that it wasn't just lying around and in fact the expertise of a specialist was needed to learn how to access those files. It is still pretty vague, but to continue the shared house analogy -- it is like hiding files behind the toilet in your bathroom, and then the toilet is clogged so you hire a plumber. Then the other guy comes in and watches the plumber, thus figuring out how to get to any files that might be hidden in the toilet. Also, for purposes of this analogy, you live in a world where it is common to hide stuff in the toilet. OK, I suck at analogies.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
It's funny to see Moral absolutists become relativists when the villain is one of their own <laughs and shakes head >
Its called hypocrisy.

[Tony]

Who's the moral absolutist?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
It's funny to see Moral absolutists become relativists when the villain is one of their own <laughs and shakes head >

Republicans have been good for a lot of laughs since Bush has come into office.

[corplinx]

The thing is, I don't think anyone is saying that what he did wasn't unethical. I think the reasoned and informed just reject the notion it was illegal (especially since they had a computer expert verify the fact that they were leaving the memos out in the open).

[evil sutko]

The lack of security is disturbing, but the Democrats weren't responsible for that problem. Hell, even some of Hatch's files were purloined.

The fact is, the staffers weren't authorized to view that material, and they knew it beforehand. That's why they should be charged criminally.

[Tony]

Originally posted by evil sutko
That's why they should be charged criminally.

Under what law?

[evil sutko]

For example:

§ 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
[...]
2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--

(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or

(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;

(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
[...]
-Source (http://www.cybercrime.gov/1030NEW.htm)

[corplinx]

2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--

Exactly, their findings have already showed this isnt the case. They even had an expert (who happens to be a democrat) verified it.

I think the brou-ha-ha is a smokescreen to cover up the damage of the content of the memos. They did good to go on the offensive instead of the defensive. Classic misdirection, nothing up my sleeve!

[TillEulenspiegel]

Jeebus JesFine, I spewed a mouthful of coffee all over my monitor when I read your post and came to the part where You said Plumber!!! Tell me You meant to do that! =)

[evil sutko]

Originally posted by corplinx


Exactly, their findings have already showed this isnt the case. They even had an expert (who happens to be a democrat) verified it.

I think the brou-ha-ha is a smokescreen to cover up the damage of the content of the memos. They did good to go on the offensive instead of the defensive. Classic misdirection, nothing up my sleeve!

They showed that there wasn't any hacking, but that not might be necessary under the law. I don't think it would take any unusual amount of prosecutorial creativity to throw these guys in jail.

As far as the memos themselves go, the damage has already been done and the story seems to have died out. The reason is probably because they were "special interest politics-as-usual" which people find a lot less interesting that "criminal activity politics-as-usual."

[corplinx]

Originally posted by evil sutko


They showed that there wasn't any hacking, but that not might be necessary under the law.

They showed that the guy who was fired for it did not "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access". All the files he accessed were within his authorization.

This is a pretty open and shut case of bad ethics. However, the criminal charges talk reminds me of Aristide claiming he was kidnapped. Meaning, just because some idiot congressman says it happened, the media will report it.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Jeebus JesFine, I spewed a mouthful of coffee all over my monitor when I read your post and came to the part where You said Plumber!!! Tell me You meant to do that! =) :DOriginally posted by corplinx
They showed that the guy who was fired for it did not "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access". All the files he accessed were within his authorization.Can you provide a link or source? I was not aware of this.

[WildCat]

I wonder what Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott would think of all this? Aha, here it is: (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/70317_mcdermott14.shtml)
"Congressman McDermott believed that the conversation recorded on the tape, in which the third-highest elected official in the federal government and others were discussing the settlement agreement, the accompanying sanctions and their plans to engage in the type of 'spin campaign' that the settlement was supposed to forbid, was of significant public interest."
Oops, my bad! That was about a different matter that Dem apologists like Subgenius don't seem too concerned about for some reason, probably since by definition only Republicans engage in dirty tricks. :rolleyes:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by WildCat
I wonder what Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott would think of all this? Aha, here it is: (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/70317_mcdermott14.shtml)

Oops, my bad! That was about a different matter that Dem apologists like Subgenius don't seem too concerned about for some reason, probably since by definition only Republicans engage in dirty tricks. :rolleyes:
Without knowing anything about what you're citing, can I state that bad is bad regardless of who do the bad?