Why is Russia treated as a "cyber threat" when the real threat is the complete lack of cybersecurity in the DNC?
Because if foreign governments are allowed to influence US elections without consequence, it will continue to happen. Foreign governments will continue to leak information about whichever political party they don't want to win, and the American people will feel their election was fine because at least now they know the losing party's dirty laundry (forgetting that the other political party is most likely just as corrupt.)
Actually, it wouldn't happen if foreign governments didn't have information to leak. I'm actually concerned this strategy will have the opposite effect of what you're suggesting. Given what we know about the security practices on Hillary's server, DNC's servers and Podesta's inability to not click on obvious phishing links, it seems almost painfully obvious to me that Russia is not the only foreign power with intel from US government or its officials. If any semi-competent skiddie can """"hack"""" them, then so can any intelligence service in the world. And by asserting that "Russia is behind this
100% please trust us", the US is essentially saying to every other foreign power that they don't care what they know.
Why are we more concerned about potential influence on an election than actual corruption?
Is a lack of cybersecurity really corruption?
I'm talking about the contents of the emails, not what led to them leaking.
Even if the "hacks" did influence the election, the people deserve to know what terrible shit their government is up to. This is just a convenient excuse for the DNC to absolve themselves of any guilt.
They deserve all the information, not information selectively presented to them by a foreign government in order to sway an election.
Well, it's not like anyone else is giving them that information.
You know why I'm not concerned about Russia influencing the election? It's because they're not using propaganda or false allegations to do it. They're using
real information that
should influence a voter's decision. The voter is objectively more informed as a result of these leaks.
Am I supposed to be upset about that?