Of course not, but there should be more to it than merely seeing the word 'Russian'. I see this all the time now in left-leaning US papers (NYTimes, WaPo) that immediately imply association with something bad happening (he spoke with a Russian!). Much like the other popular generalization of 'Muslim' without qualification of type of Muslim where significant subsets have never been involved with terrorism (sufism vs wahhabism for example).

There are proponents who want to eliminate any type of generalization based on nationality/religion/etc which is also heavily flawed. Somewhere in between is the rational approach.

The stuff in the papers is not taking "Russian" to mean "bad." It's looking at serious allegations of collusion with the Russian government, known interference in the 2016 election by the Russian government, statements by various administration officials that they had no contact with the Russian government, and then using meetings with high-level officials in the Russian government to imply something bad happening.

With this comment, the idea is that crypto software built in Russia could easily be compromised by the rather un-free Russian government, which seems pretty reasonable. Of course, the fact that this fellow no longer lives in Russia scuttles it, but that's just not being fully informed, not "xenophobia."

> The stuff in the papers is not taking "Russian" to mean "bad." It's looking at serious allegations of collusion with the Russian government

That's a very generous assessment.

If only accusations of "speaking to a Russian" were qualified by the conversation actually involving something malicious or illegal before suggesting it was improper then I'd be in much more agreement.

The fact is besides Michael Flynn who was immediately fired once people with real power found out, there hasn't been anything that has come out that was bad on the administrations part. Even the accusations against Kushner seemed to be the handy work of Flynn who was at the only meeting he had with a Russian official.

Even the level of manipulation of the election results was seemingly marginal. If leaking Clinton/Podestas/DNC's emails was the limit of the interference (assuming they even leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks), despite most Americans on the left falsely believing it involved manipulating actual votes, then I really don't think it was as bad as people seem to think.

At most the worst that can be said is that Trump/RNC's emails weren't also leaked but everyone knows Trump doesn't use email so the damage would be limited to the RNC who Trump attacked on multiple occassions.

That would be a preferred scenario to Clinton/DNC emails never being leaked IMO.

So overall I don't see the total effect of Russian manipulation having a deciding factor. Especially considering the reason he won was in poorly educated industrial swing states where things like the latest Wikileaks Podesta email isn't as big news as a Trump ralley getting people excited over populist messaging.

The allegations are serious enough for there to be multiple ongoing official investigations, and were enough to get Flynn fired, I don't see what's so generous about that.

Lying under oath to Congress is pretty bad, and when you lie about never meeting Russian officials, and then it turns out you met Russian officials, it's even worse.

Most of your comment is downplaying the consequences of Russian interference, which doesn't make any sense to me. I don't care if Russian interference resulted in +10% of the vote for Hillary, a foreign power screwing with our democracy is capital-B Bad, and if there was in fact coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, then it's capital-T Treason.

> Is it bad to be afraid when there is reason to be?

We also have a reason to connect "American company" with "NSA Spy"... and it's probably not really true for all US companies is it? :)

It's kind of ironic that Telegram is being attacked for being Russian by people coming from US of all places.

Falling down a staircase does not always hurt you seriously, I'm still afraid of getting hurt when falling down a staircase. That's why I avoid as best as I can to fall down staircases.

I also avoid as best as I can giving any data to usa companies or buying privacy-sensitive products from them.

If there's a reason to be afraid, give it. Nationality is a weak reason.

there's a difference between 'afraid of' and 'don't trust closed-source crypto from'.

There should still be a reason at the end of that: don't trust closed-source crypto from [] because [].