I don't know how to take this article. For example, if "hackers" are going to disrupt elections, they may use the same data encryption techniques usually precip

I don't know how to take this article. For example, if "hackers" are going to disrupt elections, they may use the same data encryption techniques usually precipitating a ransom campaign. However, when targeting elections, it's not money they want or could even hope for. By encrypting the data, or disrupting data flow, they've gotten exactly what they set out to do. And the longer it stays that way, the more success they'll be experiencing. It's not about money. It's about politics. There is no intention of giving the data or the access back no matter what. It is total 90's old school virusware. Your PC is now STONED!! Only this time you can't vote. It's not about ransom. The article says this blurs the line between ransom and other kinds of attacks. Ransom is always placed on something of value -- life, money, control, secrets, data/information, etc -- so I don't see where the blur is. The only difference here is that they don't actually care for ransom. The deed is done. Nobody is saying "Send us a few rubles and we'll give you your votes back" so I think this article is blurring two completely separate issues.