[jack9]

> Russia's involvement is a huge issue

Not really. China's been doing much more overt theft and hacking for years. If you think this is huge issue, you aren't paying attention. Russia got information and then released it to the US public (which nobody wants to authenticate or disavow). I consider this more of a good than a harm.

[cyberpunk]

I find this whole thing kind of baffling...

We (UK+US) have been doing this shit for years and much, much more obviously..

It's clearly an outrage though. Influencing the outcome of another countries election is america's job! How dare those pesky russians have an interest in getting a pro-ru govt installed in the US....

I mean, it's totally different to what we've been doing for decades elsewhere... Right...

[sergers]

Exactly what I was thinking... While I know it's leaning to one side and highly opinionated, I was watching Oliver Stone's untold history of the United states, right after the election.

I actually felt some anger and disgust into how US has influenced other nations and their own "democratic process" since it's beginning...

[unclebucknasty]

Not sure why that means we should be OK with the current situation though. That logic is along the lines of "The U.S. has done some imperialistic stuff. Nazi Germany did some imperialistic stuff. Let's call it a draw."

[AnimalMuppet]

Well, the US has orchestrated elections with considerable more manipulation than Russia (allegedly) used here. The US has also overthrown governments that it didn't like. So we can't call it a draw; morally we have to call it a loss for the US. (That is, until you start thinking about things like Russia rolling tanks into Warsaw in 1956 and Prague in 1968...)

[unclebucknasty]

Well, that's a lot to assume, including a.) that you know categorically that the U.S. really has engaged in "considerably more manipulation" and b.) that the quantity of manipulation alone determines the morality. For instance, does manipulating two elections to depose brutal dictators add up to a "moral loss" against manipulating one election of a peaceful, "benevolent" country to gain access to its resources?

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of arguing which interventions are "more moral"--just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

So, let's just concede that you are completely correct. That still doesn't argue for the U.S. doing nothing in response, as some seem to suggest. It's actually mind-blowing that people are offering that as a reason that the U.S. should not protect its democratic process--allowing anyone to engage in an all out assault on it with impunity.

[jjn2009]

Having any entity reveal corruption of US government officials is the least of our worries when it comes to the needs of the people, none of the media conglomerates cared when it was bush era leaks. The big issues with cybersecurity lie elsewhere.