Keywords or Terms: Bernie Sander’s Campaign team;
Data Voyeurism; Data Compromise; Hillary Clinton’s Campaign team; Priority
Data; Democratic National Committee’s Network; Total Overreach of Voter
data; What is mine is mine; What’s yours is mine too”; Wiggle room answers; Democratic
Party Watergate of 2015; Donor’s List; Pragmatic Network Protection; and,
Euphoria of the Moment
Through nearly eleven months of Democratic Competition for party
nomination, nothing has been sizzling or juicy as the current data breach or
compromise of one of the aspirant by another. As Secretary Clinton’s commanding
polls successes were galloping and the Democratic front-runner was more
interested in solidifying her progress by resorting to the old political tactic
of labeling or demonizing her rival as a single issue candidate, little did she
know that her closest rival campaign team were abrading her lid through data
pilferage. Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign team, either knowingly or unknowingly, was
engaging in the unexpected and unimaginable error of data abridgment. Allegation against Bernie’s team of staffers, including possible misbehavior of
data voyeurism: viewing, searching and saving donor’s data and deploying shifting
messages regarding the actual time of access to Hillary Clinton’s campaign
priority data, started flowing around town.
Could this be Democratic Party Watergate of 2015; or, has the situation
not risen to a level of clandestine campaign data pilferage? With this critical
event, can Senator Bernie Sander reassure Secretary Clinton’s campaign team of the start
time of the data compromise, as each team gets to know how much and to what
extent this unfortunate event has taken
place; and, how both campaign teams can rise above this misunderstanding and
develop a new “tone” and “spirit” of trust; or, has things gone too far too
soon, to arrive at a conciliation that can put each team at rest that no fishy
stuff has been going on; and, no one should be expecting any form of truce or
apologies for any misconstrued activities?
Looking to the future, has the time come for Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign
team to acknowledge the superiority of Secretary Clinton’s campaign team and
opt for a negotiation of the complicated issue of gaining access to the latter’s
donor’s list through the data abridgment? Or, is this the best moment to come
clean and quit presenting itself as victim of a cautious and deliberate effort
to abridge campaign data that are propriety information for Hillary Clinton’s
campaign? Answers to these questions depend on where your support or reservations
lie. Further, has the Democratic National Committee been complicit or part of a
scheme to provide democratic leaning voters’ list to Bernie Sander’s campaign? Is
there really no chance for Bernie Sander’s campaign team to catch up with the
twenty-percent deficit in polling against the former US Secretary of State’s
Campaign without playing dirty? At one time, it appeared Bernie Sander’s
campaign team were defensive or playing fast and loose regarding data abridgment;
however, the alleged forty-five-minute data breach on the Democratic Party National Committee portal has
introduced another dynamic to campaigning for party nomination within the
Democratic Party.
A defensive system of protecting democratic leaning voters’ list on the Democratic
National Committee’s portal is likely to change in light of this dramatic event.
Not far behind is the data security policy of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Both campaign teams are more likely to quickly streamline their access and use
of secondary data sources in the wake of current friendly “mishap”. Democratic
National Committee like Hillary Clinton’s campaign team is now confronted with
the reality of data insecurity and how this may inadvertently undermine
campaign efforts. Data insecurity can confound unwitting campaign teams and
shift chances of redoubling campaign contributions from potential donors. The
rise of data espionage is not limited to national governments or security; it
is also found in political campaigns. The offensive nature of data abridgment is
found in associated data or information stripping of campaign rivals, juxtaposition
of the dynamics of “what is mine is mine” and “what’s yours is mine too”, and
the often difficult question of who is really at fault. A sometimes irrational
or immoral activity that ends up in a law suit by either the aggrieved and the
offender are face saving if only for a while.
Any Presidential campaign team, Democrat or Republican, has the onus to
protect its data source in the modern age of electronic campaigns for a number
of reasons, some obvious, others oblivious to an uncanny eye. One pragmatic
reason is probably what Hillary Clinton campaign suffered, the chance your
closest rival gaining access to data and information on your donors and using
the same source for seeking funds for his or her campaign. Data security issues
are not only relevant for enterprise or agency private networks, as it turns
out, it is just as relevant to modern day campaigns, as an aspirant attempt to build
a supporters’ base, donor’s and contributors’ list, and broadcasting the goals
and ambitions of the campaign. Political office seekers now have to defend their campaign,
extend their policy and programs, answer press questions as well as protect their
campaign data network to survive the challenge from rivals and competition. In
brief, data security calls for greater awareness and constant monitoring of
data sources and network administrations of both the candidate and the
affiliated political party.
Indolent and unimaginative campaign outfits that fail to establish
probable strategies for transferring and receiving data from a clearing
committee or agency, is more likely to face the kind of sudden data abridgment
currently experienced by the Clinton’s camp. If Clinton’s campaign fail to
quickly recognize and respond to possible or potential data abridgment, it may
not be in a position to determine the extent of that abridgment because of
immediate insufficient information regarding the extent of compromise. The
lines may be drawn between the Sander’s Campaign and Clinton’s Campaign teams,
the Sander’s campaign team’s litigation against the Democratic National
Committee and probably the Clinton’s campaign, may be an attempt of a cover-up;
however, no one is sure; and no one is certain of the ultimate outcome of the
litigation, which may leave everyone involved miserable and despondent. This
can actually lead to reputation issues for Democrats and their ultimate party
flag bearer in the general election. Certainly, Democrats must expect the
Republicans to exploit this unfortunate event that can easily be managed with a
sense of comrade as a political party with a sense of purpose to retain the
White House oval office.
To satisfy data security needs of political campaign networks, there is a
need for establishment of parameters regarding data and information sharing and
movement on those networks: between campaign networks; among aspirant’s
networks; and, the local interface usage by multiple users on the network(s).
There is need for incremental policies, as the campaign move through the months
of campaigns to general election. Dealing with inhibited use of network data
and sources and or watching closely entry and exit into a campaign electronic network(s),
is as important as winning the nomination or election in an information age.
The salient and changing facts regarding when the Sander’s campaign team
actually gained access to Hillary Clinton’s Campaign network and when they
exited, are still opaque. Leaving wiggle room in answers to actionable
questions on data abridgment of any sort, is a difficult is a difficult
circumstance to be in. For Sanders, the presidential aspirant rival of Ms.
Clinton, it means a gawkier eye on the activities of its data managers or
network interface users to avoid possible criminal allegation against its
campaign on bases of data abridgment. For the Clinton’s camp, the genie has
been out of the bottle, defending your data source on all networks, the party’s
and yours, is your prominent task or responsibility. Indeed, the strength of
either candidate’s presidential campaign team is probably based on the ability
to maintain transparency in the reception and use of data and information from
whatever sources, without being labelled as a culprit.
The struggle for survival and campaign successes in a bid for party flag
bearer and subsequent victory in a general election is a matter of territorial
data protection and ability to refrain from defaulting to suspicious activities
against rivals. The entire campaign exercise is both a territorial protection
of strategies as well as well, protection of propriety and priority
information. It is also going to require self-imposed restraint from using
rivals’ information without authorization. Advances and successes in primaries
and caucuses must depend on tactical and strategic offenses and discipline from
defaulting to fraud or suspicious data abridgment in order to win. Aspirant
and Senator Bernie Sanders must terminate any of his staff involved in the
purported suspicious activity to rise above the fray and maintain the often
touted moral transparency that his campaign has been known for till now.
Accusation of stealing campaign data from an opponent is bad press enough
for a struggling campaign that is attempting to make a difference and overcome
polling differentials. Senator and aspirant Bernie Sanders after all, has
projected a campaign of restraint and one strictly on principles and
possibilities of alleviating many Americans from poverty. The alleged data abridgment from his campaign must now be accepted as an aberration; however,
if Aspirant Hillary attempt to use this as a campaign crutch, a simple apology
at the third democratic party debate appropriate and hopefully sufficient, to
move ahead of the controversy.
Hillary Clinton campaign team’s enthusiasm to use this error as a rope to
hang Bernie Sander must be cautious as things like this has a tendency to
boomerang. Yes, the suspected data abridgments from the rival candidate
present new set of problems for former Secretary of State’s campaign; however,
going too aggressively against Bernie Sander’s team may create other political
pitfalls and challenges that may not be immediately apparent. The danger of
going heavy handed in criticism may cause unintended consequences when it comes
to general elections in November of 2016. This is the reason why a nuclear
option of dragging Bernie Sander’s campaign through the mud may not be
advisable.
The conventional wisdom is that Secretary Clinton Campaign is still the
front runner; and that this unfortunate event may cripple the efforts of the
Democratic Party to hold on to the White House as a whole if the issue of data
abridgment is not handle with some maturity. Senator Bernie Sander may come
out completely scratched in the litigation initiated against the Democratic
National Committee and fall apart from this unfortunate event. Could an
extended litigation within the Democratic Party scuttle the chances of the
party from fielding a better prepared flag bearer? Can Secretary Hillary
Clinton fear an excessive exposure of her campaign strategies at a litigation
forum and thereby exposing or tearing asunder hitherto protected strategies of
her campaign? These are issues and questions that must be contemplated in light
of the current difficult experience.
The euphoria of the moment regarding the data abridgments dictates a new
strategy for the former’s secretary’s campaign, as well as the Democratic
National Committee. There is no longer a time to take things for granted by
either party or any other candidate in the race. Just as Secretary Clinton is
building a better bandwidth of policies and programs for her campaign, now is
the time to correlate that effort with keener strategies and technologies to
protect her campaign network. There is an option to implant device drivers and encryption technology that
are automatic defense managers against intruders; or queries from inter-agency or
inter-candidate’s electronic networks. This will eliminate agency or candidate’s
network invasion by anyone, friend or foe.
Finally, Secretary Clinton’s
campaign initiative to cut fees for immigrants seeking citizenship is probably
uplifting for progressives; advancing proactive policies on national security,
income inequality and a more equitable justice system are even more clear-able; however,
leaving your network susceptible to invasion, or data swap from Democratic
National Committee Network that may lead
to allegation of criminal activities, is hardly a sign of a proactive data
network user and dynamic campaign outfit. Working with the Democratic National
Committee to exchange or transfer data of opponents may be construed in
multiple context; however, shying away from impropriety may be a better option.
Perfect is the enemy of the good, right? Thus, working to establish data
sharing guidelines or date transfer protocols on networks is better than good;
it is Perfect!
No comments:
Post a Comment