>If we call any US election which was unsuccessfully interfered with by a foreign country "hacked", I think every election for the foreseeable future will be "h

>If we call any US election which was unsuccessfully interfered with by a foreign country "hacked", I think every election for the foreseeable future will be "hacked", no? No doubt Russia, and probably other nations, will continue to try and interfere in US elections, yes. To use the common term, they will continue to "hack" our elections. And whether they were unsuccessful in 2016 is unknown, it's premature to say they failed. >In Canada when we say a system was hacked we mean someone had unauthorized access to it, not that they hired teenagers to make memes. You're confusing a technical industry term with a colloquialism. And I'll bet if you look around, you'll find Canadians who have used the term "hacked" in an imprecise, non-technical way. >...they hired teenagers to make memes >...what had really happened was just a lot of social media spam? This is an extremely naive way to describe a concerted, state-sponsored effort by an adversary to influence an election in its favor. It absolutely was equivalent to 9/11 in the sense that it was an attack with major national security implications that we were unprepared for. I'm not going to change your mind, but know that it doesn't really match the opinion of the US military and intelligence communities, who, as I've noted, beg to differ.