https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/report-house-gop-campaign-committees-emails-were-hacked So we now know that both the DNC and NRCC have been hacked, trying to put this into the perspective of history vs. Watergate. Now Watergate was unique in that one political party leader pretty much ordered criminal actions, then tried to cover them up. These hacks differ some from Watergate, as they are likely the result of foreign powers, trying to see if they can manipulate and/or undermine our Democracy. That leaves the question, is it safe to keep this type of data on networked computers? Email is very convenient, as is the internet, and computers in general. However these type of cyber intrusions don't require physical access to data, and can be committed by people who never need to enter the country they are hacking. Whereas before, if a foreign intelligence service wanted access to this type of campaign data, they world need intel officers to penetrate, work, or coerce, and it still required a human interaction by people within the US. One of the very real dangers here is this type of espionage doesn't require them to ever be within the jurisdiction of the nation the laws are being broken in. I mean, if we assume Russia or China, they'll just deny ant "official" involvement, and we will likely never be able to bring anyone to justice. Without the threat of law enforcement, how can we hope to deter anyone, or group from interfering in our most important matters. It seems to be a quagmire, fought with all sorts of issues I can't even begin to see all the pitfalls of. Are we entering an age that secrecy and privacy will no longer exist as we know them? Is that really a bad thing, in the context of democracy, political parties, and committees? If you are not doing anything illegal, or unethical, then should you be afraid of the truth? The truth can be a fickle, I mean it's easy to paint truthful things into the light you want to paint them in, that's what propaganda is, it's just facts, presented in a way to make you draw the conclusion the person presenting them to you wants you to draw. Surely political parties and committees can engage in strategies that are not illegal or unethical, but by their nature wouldn't be effective if not for secrecy?