Russian hackers compromised the voter databases in two
counties in Florida. According to Gov. Ron DeSantis, “Two Florida counties
experienced intrusion into the supervisor of election networks. . . . There was
no manipulation . . . it did not affect voting or anything like that.”[1]
I submit that intrusion is the
operative word here, for even if voting tallies were not affected, the mentality behind intruding is itself
sordid. In other words, the source of the unethical conduct does not just lie
in the consequences, though they could admittedly be significant in the future.
The FBI “believed the intrusion into ‘at least one Florida
county government’ was carried out by Russia’s military-intelligence service,
which also hacked and dumped Democratic Party emails during the [2016]
election.”[2]
In other words, one government was intruding into rather than merely spying on
another government. Had the Russian government intruded further by changing
votes (or the number thereof), the result could have very significant, for
Donald Trump won Florida’s 29 electoral votes for the U.S. presidency by edging
out Hilary Clinton in the popular vote by a mere 100,000 votes, or about 1.2
percent.[3]
Moreover, the credibility of reported election results could then have worsened
due to the ongoing possibility that the work of Russian hackers might not be
discoverable. In such event, it would not be in the interest of the U.S. Government
to make such information (and even the possibility thereof) public.
Bad results or not, intruding into the inner workings of another government demonstrates a
marked lack of respect for the latter and its people, including the form of government—in this case, democracy. Even if no sabotage has been incurred, the
intrusion itself is a matter worthy of affecting the governments’ bilateral
relations. In interpersonal relations, for instance, if one person does not
respect another, the relationship itself is naturally affected. For one thing,
the disrespect can turn mutual, and at the very least, mutual distrust can
become salient. I contend that the disrespected person is ethically able to
recalibrate the relationship itself to reflect the now-mutual disrespect and
mistrust (for trust cannot exist among disrespect). Once the underlying reality
of the relation is laid bare between the parties, the bargaining can explicitly
reflect the extant condition of disrespect (and distrust). For example, the
party that is more disrespected can legitimately give less as a cost of the
unwarranted disrespect. Respect itself becomes a currency that has value
because it can be tied to other things of value. Essentially, the more
disrespected party can hold the disrespect up to the other party, in effect
forcing that party to the realization that disrespect has negative
consequences. There being negative consequences to the disrespect itself can
itself be a respect-earning strategy. Fundamentally, a relationship can reach a
more stable equilibrium only once the tilt in the relationship’s “game board”
is made explicit and dealt with even in the making of particular deals. The
tilt itself should not be allowed to become part of the status quo, which would
happen if the intruded government
does not make the intrusion itself a constant matter recalibrating the
relationship.
[1] Dustin
Votz, “Russians Breached Voter Data in Two Florida Counties in 2016,” The Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2019.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
