March 5, 2004
NICE SENSE OF PROPORTION:
Report Finds Republican Aides Spied on Democrats (NEIL A. LEWIS, 3/05/04, NY Times)
For 18 months, at least two Republican Senate staff aides engaged in unauthorized and possibly illegal spying by reading Democratic strategy memorandums on a Senate computer system, according to a report released on Thursday by the Senate sergeant-at-arms.The 65-page report concluded that the two Republican staff aides, both of whom have since departed, improperly read, downloaded and printed as many as 4,670 files concerning the Democrats' tactics in opposing many of President Bush's judicial nominees. The report, the result of an investigation undertaken at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that many other Republican staff aides may have been involved in trafficking in the stolen documents. [...]
In a statement issued Thursday night, Mr. Miranda, who had been a senior counsel to Mr. Hatch and to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said, "The report draws conclusions or observations that are ludicrous and easily placed into context."
He said that it was fundamentally wrong to consider the Democratic strategy documents as confidential, because they were easily accessible.
In an interview, Mr. Miranda said that the report did, however, confirm his contention that there was no "hacking," by which he meant that no security walls that needed passwords had been breached.
Mr. Lundell was described in the report as a young and curious clerk who was eager to impress his superiors. The report said that he freely admitted to Senator Hatch and investigators his role in the matter and had left Washington to attend graduate school in accounting in Texas. His whereabouts could not be determined.
"trafficking"? Has the Times gone nuts? That's a term of art for the trade in human beings. Was passing around public files that showed Democrats colluding with interest groups to thwart judicial appointments or postpone them until important decisions were handed down really the equivalent of white slavery? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 5, 2004 8:31 AM
If Republicans do it, then the Times would answer, "Yes."
Posted by: Chris at March 5, 2004 9:05 AMThe only side that was really "trafficking" is the Democratic one, which was deciding to hold some of President Bush's judicial nominees in bondage sheerly because of their race.
Although even that would probably going a bit far to use.
Posted by: John Thacker at March 5, 2004 9:40 AMYou're against slavery now?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 5, 2004 11:25 AMI thought "drug" and "trafficking" were practically joined at the hip.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 5, 2004 11:39 AMTo the NYT, any Republican on the Judiciary Committee is "massa".
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 5, 2004 12:11 PMWhat is the most disappointing to me is that the Republicans apparently have been unable to do anything with the information.
Posted by: Rick T. at March 5, 2004 12:52 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/winkler200403041011.asp
March 04, 2004, 10:11 a.m.
Memo Gateless
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are guilty of gross computer-security negligence.
By Ira Winkler
As a lifelong Democrat and security professional, I learned with disgust the details about the recent compromise of information on the part of Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Basically, Republican staffers accessed files, created by the Democratic contingent, that were on a file server used by both Democrats and Republicans. While the Republicans knew the information was not intended for their eyes, they read it anyway.
But my disgust is ironically with the Democrats, whose positions I generally support, and not the Republicans.
Now the United States Senate is not like other work places that might suffer from such a pathetic situation. Senate Rule 29.5 and its legislative history states that everything is open to the American public with three exceptions, none of which apply to these documents.
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.
Given the outrage expressed by senators, it is clear they wanted the information to be secret. But if information is left as unprotected in public or healthcare-related businesses as it was by the Democrats, corporate executives could be heavily fined or go to jail under HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley, or GLBA regulations.
This story isn't Memogate. This is Memo-gateless.
— Ira Winkler, a computer security and espionage expert, is author of the forthcoming book, Spies Among Us.)
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 6, 2004 1:11 AMAre these memos in the public domain? If, as Mr Winkler states, they are open to the public what's keeping them from being posted on the net? Has anyone filed a Freedom of Information Act request for them yet?
Posted by: Mike Leggett at March 6, 2004 8:07 AM