I agree, the election in 2020 was primarily spread over those concerned one candidate would win over the others rather than from actual fears of legitimate voter fraud. In 2016 the concern was much more serious as you said and should have been considered more than they were.

Election integrity has been a rising topic and concern for many, especially with how close the elections have been and the increasing levels of polarization in U.S. politics. I agree that it's necessary in democracies for leaders to find support from their people but this has become more and more difficult over time. I'd be curious to learn more about South Korea's issues with voter fraud if there are any.

Foreign Interference Targeting Election Infrastructure Report: I think there can often be claims of election fraud when the outcome isn't what was desired by the opposing side. Of course looking into these types of fraud, especially in such important elections is needed, but claims made can often be baseless. Myanmar also had an election in 2020 where the military alleged voter fraud when they didn't agree with the outcome and went so far as to use it as a reason for justifying the coup a few months later. Independent reports found there was no evidence of voter fraud in the Myanmar elections and so it really just came down to disagreeing with Aung Sang Suu Kyi winning the election. While Myanmar's situation is far more extreme than events in the U.S. following the election, I found the parallels to be interesting.

It seems like the company should have been exercising better screenings in many aspects since the information and projects they were handling were so sensitive. Makes me wonder how many other companies dealing with important information are lacking in security policies.

China Case Example: Out of the entire document I thought the mitigation efforts listed were the most interesting. Most of what was recommended seemed like it should be commonplace for a company that has important information to protect. Especially for a company that is dealing with important information for the government that's worth a lot of money. Protocols like "ensuring proprietary information is carefully protected", conducting "in-depth" background checks are performed, and making sure that retiring or separated employees return company property all seem like they should have already been in place. It just seems odd to me that it would have been so easy for this information to be taken in the first place.

I think the access allotted would have more to do with his status at the company, I found it more odd that the company would let anyone at all take these supposed important documents home. While it was wrong to take the data in the first place, the company should also have had payed more attention and had better measures in place against the stealing of information.

I agree that understanding how these dynamics interact is important to learning about how to restrict its frequency. This type of disunity is very harmful to society but also very complicated.

I do think it's interesting that there's not more global solidarity in the face of domestic terrorism and radical group activity. I can understand how countries like South Korea wouldn't take interest in it because they don't have these issues but I think for others it could be beneficial.

As stated in the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, the threat of terrorism has a multitude of sources it comes from and ways of manifesting with there being "no single action or single part of the U.S. Government that can address the entirety of that threat". It would only make sense to create different strategies like these four pillars to work simultaneously on these differing facets of domestic terrorism. It's more important than ever to look at domestic terrorism in the United States because of the levels of disunity, especially in the past 4 to 6 years. As I said in my previous post I still think that it's important for the U.S. to start learning from the international community and other states that have diverse populations. It's an issue that while being a domestic issue, is also being seen around the world and could see more cooperative solutions. It might be too optimistic but I'd think that increasing the positive relations the U.S. has globally could have mutual benefits for those involved.

I think another aspect to consider is that South Korea's demographics lack diversity with the vast majority of citizens being Korean making the populations extremely homogenous. This is likely related to the patriotism outlook you describe and the low levels of domestic terrorism.

I'd agree that domestic terrorism is a wide category with many different acts able to be classified within it. That wide range and difference in definitions and how it's applied is in of itself another source of conflict the U.S. has been facing and could very well exacerbate instances of domestic terrorism.

While reading the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism I began to think about internal terrorism in the Asia-Pacific and noticed that Myanmar and the U.S. have some overlap I hadn't thought about before. Of course the two have a myriad of differences and are dealing with different levels of domestic terrorism right now I found the commonalities to be interesting. Currently in Myanmar there is a military junta which took over in a violent coup about 5 months ago and ousted the former leader and government. Outside of the coup d'état I noticed between what was pointed out about the U.S. were some of the characteristics of Myanmar. The states both have diverse populations with ethnicity based conflict, a history of internal conflict, and domestic terrorist attacks from those opposing the government and its institutions. Each of these similarities were brought up in the National Strategy report about the U.S. as reasons for elevated threats. I think looking at other countries with similar characteristics and issues and learning from either their successes or mistakes would be another key part in aiding the U.S. in avoiding further domestic conflict and terrorism.