http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23736254

This is breaking news, so there will be more information shortly.

Questions for debate

1. How serious is this security leak involving a major presidential candidate's private records?

2. Is the Obama campaign justified in asking for an investigation? If so, who should conduct the investigation?

3. Although this information has apparently been known to state Department officials for some time, Obama was just notified today. Why the delay?

4. How far up the ladder do you predict this incident will go?

Given the bit that is found in your snip, I don't agree with the title of your thread, and I doubt this will be anything major going forward.


Now, for security purposes, I agree that an investigation should be conducted. I don't know who should conduct is. I would think the Secret Service would have jurisdiction on investigations in this matter, but I am not certain.

I am not sure we can rely on the word of the unnamed senior official who talked to NBC News. I will go on record as predicting that we are going to be hearing about this story for some time to come as the details unfold.

My point was that they three were low-level contract employees, not the "State Department Officials" that the title to your thread claims. However, since they were low-level contract employees, I think it would be in our nation's best interest to conduct a full investigation. I would sincerely hate to find out that something could have been prevented if these incidents were part of some conspiracy to bring harm to Senator Obama. I doubt that it is the case, but the 'what if' still exists.

Things are moving fast and furious with this story. Seems as if the "senior official" who spoke to NBC News, was merely repeating what he had been told by these guy's immediate supervisors, and that no investigation of any kind has been done. But that's about to change.

Since it went public, the Inspector General has said there will be an investigation into this matter.

Additionally, there appears to be a rather interesting matter of timing with these breaches:

A release from State that the breach occurred on three different occassions, on January 9th, February 21st and March 14th.

Jan. 3, 8: Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Obama wins big in Iowa, splits New Hampshires delegates.

Feb. 9-19: Obama sweeps all nine contests during this period, takes lead from Clinton.

March 4-11: Obama loses Texas, Ohio primaries, but maintains delegate lead.

Now, I'm specifically not saying that there is anymore to this than coincidence, or that Clinton supporters, or McCain supporters are in any way involved with this. I just found the timing interesting.

But another question occurs to me. Since these are computerized records of an active file, I wonder how possible it might be to alter or insert information. Or, since these are electronic files, could they have been emailed or otherwise transmitted out of the office once they were accessed?

Right now there are more questions than answers. What happens in the next few days or weeks is liable to be interesting indeed.

Dan Abrams just used the words State Department officials. That could include anyone working in an official capacity for the state department.

I work in a low level capacity for a local tax firm, but I am still subject to confidentiality regulations for tax preparers. I am in an official position, though low-level, when I work for the tax service according to IRS regulations.

Official is up to interpretation.

Furtherr I cant imagine this being known for a couple of months without someone higher up in the State Department knowing

My question is why this has been known since January, yet Obama is just finding out about it. Has there been a cover-up? I think we will be learning more soon.

Found another article. The 'unamed offical' is named here. According to this story, Secretary of State Rice was notified yesterday.


It goes on to say "In each case, we immediately contacted our contractors, their employer, and two were fired and one was disciplined," he said." However, there isn't an indication as to the time frame between the notification and the termination. We also don't fully understand from these two articles the internal investigative process and how long that takes. I think we will find that this is a non-story.

Yeah, Tim. And Watergate was non-story when it first came out. Not saying that this won't end up being a non-story, but we just know too little at this time to be making any definitive statements, don't you think?

What definitive statement did I make again? I think I agreed with BoF that we don't know enough about this story to be jumping to conclusions, then went on to say-and I quote "I think we will find that this is a non-story." Not much of a definitive statement when it is an opinion. Why not weigh in on the story, NightGuy?

Hopefully enough to get them jail time – not just fired.



Sure investigate. Maybe they will stop using contract employees in these positions.




To the dope who didn’t review the logs and nail these dopes more quickly.

But will the replace the Obama Wright issue as you hope BoF – no way.

Well, first, Tim, it's NiteGuy, not NightGuy. Second, I believe you'll find that I did weigh in on the story, if you go back and look at post #5.

I'm sorry NiteGuy, I thought that was all conspiracy theory rhetoric. I didn't know that it was substansively related to what actually happend. My mistake.

The cats just made me get up to feed them. I'm going back to bed, But I thought I'd post this update by Andrea Mitchell first.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23742508#23742508

How serious is this security leak involving a major presidential candidate's private records?

Security leaks should be taken seriously regardless of who is involved. This one doesn't seem like that major a breach and I'm sure it will be fully investigated. A spokesman for Obama called it "outrageous" and Sen. Clinton personally called it "outrageous", so I guess, however minor, it's also outrageous.

Is the Obama campaign justified in asking for an investigation?

Sure.

If so, who should conduct the investigation?

The State Department's Inspector General is apparently the official investigator, though it could be passed to the Justice Department. If there's any evidence that the information was "disseminated", it could be turned over to the FBI to see if federal charges are warranted.

Although this information has apparently been known to State Department officials for some time, Obama was just notified today. Why the delay?

Evidently, the first two instance were dealt with "locally" by lower management at "office level" (I'm not sure whether they were contract or not), who failed to pass the information up the line. Senior State Department officials only learned about the breaches on Thursday themselves - and passed the information pretty immediately to Condoleezza Rice and Obama's Senate office.

How far up the ladder do you predict this incident will go?

Well, I doubt it was authorized by President Bush - he has more important things to screw up - so I doubt it will extend beyond the State Department. So far as culpability goes, it looks like the low-level managers are the ones at fault. I don't see any disciplinary action extending beyond them. And I don't see any possible charges being brought against anyone but the three people who snooped.


You might also find this hat interesting. I realize you're "specifically not saying that there is anymore to this than coincidence", but it's hardly worth bringing up. First, pick any three random days this year and you'll be able to place them within a week or so of some primary, caucus, major poll, major address, or breaking story. Now, if they were clustered or if they immediately followed or preceded a significant win or loss in each case, it might be a tad suspicious.

Second, we're talking about his passport records - and, so far, we don't even know if they had access to more than the passport application. Even if they had full access, I doubt there's a draft-dodging charge or a student trip to Soviet Russia to exploit, as was the case when Bill Clinton's passport records were purloined in 1992. The culprit in that case, an actual State Department official, was merely demoted for "lapses of judgment". After a three-year probe, the federal independent counsel investigating the case exonerated the officials involved. If there were any travel-related misdeeds in Obama's past - a series of visits to pre-invasion Baghdad, say, or extended vacations in Pyongyang - I'm sure we would have heard something about it before this. Otherwise, passport records contain very little information - no financial records, no medical records (apart from, maybe, requisite inoculations), no phone bills or credit card receipts, no personal information that wouldn't be easily obtainable elsewhere.

As to these being active electronic files, I seriously doubt that low-level contract employees would be able to permanently alter a master file that wouldn't be duplicated elsewhere without a trace. Even if they could, what're they gonna do - indicate that he was in Peking for several weeks for which the senator could easily produce an "alibi"? try to suggest Obama was a yellow fever vaccine junkie? make his passport photo look "darker, more sinister, and with a wider nose"?

There may be more to this story than meets the eye - and the investigation has only just commenced - but what meets the eye so far seems pretty innocuous. Apparently, according to the latest news, all three remaining candidates had their passport files breached. Oh, my God - go to DEFCON 2! McCain's files were accessed on March 14 - only ten days after Huckabee dropped out! - the same day and by the same person who looked at Obama's files. I guess that one was Geraldine Ferraro masquerading as a low-level contract employee, looking for suspicious birthmark information on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

This will be developing for a while, I suspect. Meanwhile, I'd listen to anyone other than Andrea Mitchell - she was leaping to conspiracy theories within seconds of the story breaking and is desperate for attention, as usual (indeed, she was the source of NiteGuy's timeline trope). She's already sounding disappointed that Sen. Clinton's files were also breached.

I suppose if these low-level contract workers turn out to be Obama fans imprudently curious about their hero, the story will suddenly become OBAMA SUPPORTERS FIRED FROM STATE DEPARTMENT!!!


EDITED FOR TYPO STUFF

Exactly: So attempts to make this a partisan issue will fail.


“All three major presidential candidates have had their passport files breached, the State Department confirmed Friday.
Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain were informed that their files were improperly accessed, according to their Senate offices, after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice apologized to Barack Obama for a similar violation.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/21/ap...breached-in-07/

I heard this morning that the investigation will likely be handed over to the Justice Department. Apparently since the people involved in this were contractors and not State Department employees the State IG has no authority to compel them to cooperate with his investigation.

Aquilla

Breaking news: ALL three candidates passport files were breached:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080321/ap_on_.../obama_passport


Questions for debate

1. How serious is this security leak involving a major presidential candidate's private records?

All 3 candidates now. Hard to say. I do not know what is kept in such a file. As all three candidates are Senators, their travel habits are likely well-documented in a number of sources.

2. Is the Obama campaign justified in asking for an investigation? If so, who should conduct the investigation?

This looks like an equal opportunity issue--a general look at security is warranted.

3. Although this information has apparently been known to state Department officials for some time, Obama was just notified today. Why the delay?

Surely the State Dept is embarassed over all of this. They also likely wanted to get as much info as the could before telling any of the candidates, as surely they knew this revelation would immediately hit the press. The likely wanted to get as much info as they could before the entire situation blew up and it ceased to be an investigation and became a mud-slinging contest.

4. How far up the ladder do you predict this incident will go?

With all 3 candidates involved, probably not much beyond the immediate supervisor level, but you never know.

You know, while these violations of people's privacy are serious and the violators should be punished, I don't think there's really any big nefarious scheme going on here. I think it's more of a "gossip mentality" on the part of some people than anything else. People are naturally curious about famous people and when they can get access to information about those people that "nobody else knows", it makes them feel like an insider or something. I don't know. Recently Brittney Spears' medical records from her latest meltdown were accessed by some people at the UCLA Medical Center. Those people were fired and they probably had a better reason than the State Department contractors did. With Brittney, you can sell stuff to the tabloids and to TMZ.

Aquilla

That was my first thought when I heard the story - especially as the "office level" management had reportedly dismissed the breaches as "imprudent curiosity". It looks like the main transgression here was their failure to report the incidents up. But we'll see...

Yeah, you're right, but you and I have both been in management positions where we've had an otherwise good employee working for us that does something stupid. Generally, you call them into your office and tell them, "That was stupid, don't do it again" and that's the end of it. I never much cared for some of this "zero tolerance" crap that we have so pervasive today.


Aquilla

Heh - I flashed on the whole Sandy Berger thing when I saw this, too - though this seems, so far, to be more trivial.

I had to laugh when I read the line about Bush having “more important things to screw up." He’s probably doing that right now.

When I posted this last night the only thing we knew was that three contract employees were either fired or disciplined. I was not suggesting that this was another Watergate, but was questioning who in the State Department knew about it and when. Even in the unlikely event it did turn into a Watergate type thing, I’m not sure it would have much impact on the election. Watergate certainly did not help George McGovern.

The State Department has just revealed that the people involved worked for Stanley, Inc.


http://www.stanleyassociates.com/company/vision_mission.asp


Ted, you are setting up another straw man and I’m calling you on it. Most of the posts on this thread recognized that this story was in its infancy and have proceeded accordingly – with caution.

Goodness gracious, I think we might be going a bit drama queen here dontcha think? It appears from all accounts that an investigation was conducted, guilty parties were fired or disciplined, and life went on. If you expect Obama to be notified every time someone peeks up his skirt, when is he going to have time to run the country?

Because of the potential for such things as theft identity, don't you think it would be wise to inform any citizen when their confidential information is breeched?

I think some of you have gotten so comfortable with Bush's using questionable wiretaps, etc. -in the guise of national security, of course - that you've become numb to such things whether or not they are of major importance.

How much drama does it take to arouse the numb.

BoF, is your position that there was a violation of a person's privacy, or that there is some sort of conspiracy? I am just trying to understand your position, so I am asking sincerely.

It looks like at this point that it was a violation of privacy. One must, however, wonder why this did not get to the upper and mid-management levels of the State Depratment. It may well have been just common old garden variety CYA type stuff. Regardless, it needs to be investigated and safeguards put in place to see that it doesn't happen again.

It doesn't really matter much, though. Posters like Ted and HtL are going to try to make something of this thread that was never intended.

That happens in all threads, and you and I are guilty of contributing to some, I think we can admit.

I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop it from happening again. Even when given rules and guidelines, people are still going to do what is not permitted. While working for a major financial giant, I know of people that had looked up any number of celebrities as well as prominent politicians, to include President Bush and the First Lady. This is going to happen as long as our nation has some obsession with knowing the intimate workings of the lives of those in the spotlight. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to justify anything.

In the case of the three candidates' passport information being viewed by someone that had access, but not a need to know, I don't think we will be seeing any federal grand juries being assembled. If the investigation finds that their personal information was revealed to anyone, then I would support charges to be brought about; just as I would for any citizen.

As far as getting upper level management involved, I would venture a guess that nothing sinister was behind the incidents per their internal investigations. Again, still too early to jump to conclusions. Especially since we now know that Obama wasn't the only one getting looked at. It is starting to appear it was just a few people that let curiosity get the better of them, and got them fired.

Are you suggesting that we should just let this go and not attempt to put safeguards in place? Is government so effete that you don't think it can do much of anything right?
BTW: I kept this short, so you wouldn't have too much to twist, scubatim.

Not much to twist in this thread, you and I would have been doing that long ago!

There appear to be systems in place, which is why these individuals have been delt with. I guess I don't know why type of safeguards you would recommend.

As far as the government getting much of anything right: I have lost what ever faith that I thought was well placed before I actually began to look more into issues. So no, I don't have much faith in much of anything our government (more specifically Congress and POTUS) does.

I don't know either scubatim. There's a lot that can be done with electronics, but I'm not a technical person, so I don't know what. I am sure, after this, that whatever gadgets protect the system better as well as guidelines for reporting to breeches to mid and upper level management will be reviewed.

I may actually agree with you that the security system may not be made perfect, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I guess I don't agree with the term 'breech'. These individuals apparently had access to the information, but not a need to know. When I hear breech, I interpret it as someone hacking into the system that doesn't have the authority to view the information. It may be a matter of symantics, but I think poor judgement on the part of the individuals that accessed the passport information on all three candidates doesn't constitute a breech. A violation of privacy is definately what is being delt with, but I don't know if it is more than that.

I think the contracted company firing those involved is appropriate and sufficient. I will qualify that by adding that if an investigation finds that these actions were more than excessive curiosity and the information was intended to be used for criminal activity, charges should be brought. But it is a little premature to sentence those parties involved to hard labor!

I also don't know if the Secretary of State needs to be notified when some low-level contracted employee makes a stupid decision to look up someone they shouldn't. I also don't know that we need to have a Congression investigation when it happens.

If you don't like "breech," scubatim, call it whatever you wish.

Mid to upper management does not necessarily mean the Sec. of State.

What is your definition of the word breech as you use it in this thread? Maybe understanding that, we can understand each other better.

How far up the chain of command would someone looking up any political leader need to be run? Would this be limited to just politicians, or would it include anyone that is famous? Would you support this to be the SOP for when anyone is looked up when there isn't a need to know?

Look! This is getting to the point of splitting hairs.

Define whatever you want as you want and decide how far up it should go.

I'm working all day tomorrow and don't have time to carry this on.

Feel free to get in the last word.

Dude, relax. You are the one that is making the assertion that something should be reported to someone in some level of management and that something should be done to prevent this. I am just trying to understand what it is that you are exactly thinking. I am asking you to define what it is that you are talking about. I don't think asking you to clarify what it is that you are saying is splitting hairs. I think it is perfectly valid. Would you rather I assume to know what you are talking about? I don't know how me defining what you say and deciding how far up things go based on what you say makes any sense. All I am asking for is clarification. I don't think any of the questions I asked above are unreasonable.

You know, for a couple of bucks, potential creditors (STRANGERS) can access my personal information to assess if I'm worthy of being offered a mailing to buy a new car.

They can see if I have a job, what kind of money I make, and what my payments are like, and how I tend to pay them.

It's called a credit report.

/yawn
//I wish alarms went off when it was for someone who wasn't a high profile person
///you know, like the rest of us

I see your point, AZ, but the difference is a need to know. If you go into a bank and ask for your credit report, they have a need to look it up; because you told them to. In this situation, no one had a need to look the information up. I am in complete agreement with you that the system should not treat high profile people special, it should look out for everyone.

One of my vendors often tells me the where-abouts of Christina Aguliera. The vendor has access to a client's database of her travel. I am not sure why she's so interested in this information but it fascinates her. I am fairly certain that this illegal activity (and it is illegal) is benign. It's a fan feeling closer to the stars.

Chances are the people who looked at this information did so in the same spirit.

However, don't let sanity mess up this awesome conspiracy thread.

Quite the contrary, BA. I think some of us, including Wertz, scubatim and I have worked pretty hard to prevent that.

There is much paranoia about identity theft these days. This may well have been the work of "star gazers," but we don't know what info they got from the files or what they did with it.

BA- you have three people, any one of which may be president after next january's swearing in ceremony.

We had a major breech of security here- and you think it is no big deal?

We don't know what kind of info is in there- it very well could have listed appearence schedules and routes and such- we don't know- but it could be much worse than identity theft- the problem here is- that the breech happened at all, when these should be the most secure files in the US.

I don't think we have a serious breech of security. Candidates' "appearence schedules and routes and such" aren't a matter of national security. They are known well in advance. If they weren't, no one would be able to show up. What is secret about these schedules?

No one is saying that the invasion of privacy isn't a big deal. I am getting two messages from those that don't support some conspiracy theory. One is that this level of concern shouldn't be reserved only for high profile people, but for all Americans. Second is that people looking up information about high profile people that they have access to isn't uncommon. Not that it is right, but it isn't uncommon. Curiosity got the better of these individuals just as it does many other people.