Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Justice Department Warns It Might Not Be Able To Prosecute Voting Machine Hackers (vice.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the all-about-the-technicalities dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: After more than a decade of headlines about the vulnerability of U.S. voting machines to hacking, it turns out the federal government says it may not be able to prosecute election hacking under the federal law that currently governs computer intrusions. Per a Justice Department report issued in July from the Attorney General's Cyber Digital Task Force, electronic voting machines may not qualify as "protected computers" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the 1986 law that prohibits unauthorized access to protected computers and networks or access that exceeds authorization (such as an insider breach).

The report says the law generally only prohibits against hacking computers "that are connected to the Internet (or that meet other narrow criteria for protection)" and notes that voting machines generally do not meet this criteria "as they are typically kept off the Internet." Consequently, "should hacking of a voting machine occur, the government would not, in many conceivable circumstances, be able to use the CFAA to prosecute the hackers." Aside from the fact that the assertion about voting machines not being connected is incorrect -- many voting machines are connected in that they use cellular and landline modems that connect with cell towers and backend telecom networks to transmit results on election night -- the government's assertion that the CFAA applies only to connected machines is news to legal experts.

102 comments

  1. Of course... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...if those same voting machines were downloading movies or whatnot, why the Feds would be all over them with black helicopters, etc.!

    1. Re:Of course... by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...if those same voting machines were downloading movies or whatnot, why the Feds would be all over them with black helicopters, etc.!

      You are over thinking this. All it would take to knock the Republicans out of their current state of wilful inaction on the subject of election security is if the hacks alluvasudden started benefitting the Democrats instead of them and their orange emperor.

    2. Re: Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: FRAUD!

    3. Re:Of course... by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      if those same voting machines were downloading movies or whatnot

      Which means they would be connected to the Internet. Which would remove the reason why TFS says the CFAA wouldn't apply.

      That wasn't too hard.

    4. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "DoJ says current federal law against hacking doesn't apply to voting machines because they aren't connected to the internet" - Kind of hard to download movies or whatnot when there isn't an internet connection to download them from.

    5. Re:Of course... by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      It's not hacking. Where is your patriotism to the flag?

      In the land of lies, truth is treason.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    6. Re: Of course... by jd · · Score: 1

      Of course.

      We know that crimes by Republicans (such as Judge Aleppo) get blanket pardons on conviction or pressure not to let it go to court. The holdout in the Manafort trial did so not because of the evidence but to protect their side. The Republicans in SCOTUS backed the cake shop not because of the Constitution (which backed the claimant) but to back their own.

      Minor infractions by any Democrat result in illegal punishments.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re: Of course... by jd · · Score: 2

      Since they are connected to the Internet, and yet the government claims the law doesn't apply, not having a reason changes nothing.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re: Of course... by jd · · Score: 2

      Since there is an Internet connection, go back three squares and miss a turn.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If that were the case voter ID would already be a thing, which the Democracts rabidly oppose as it would mean losing a large chunk of votes for them.

    10. Re: Of course... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So cheating tens of millions of Americans in a primary is only a minor infrastructure, like a kid shoplifting, basically American democracy is who gives a fuck.

      One and only one reason why they would choose to interpret a blanket ban on prosecution a whole lot of corrupt people were involved in baking the last elections, the Republicans and the Democrats straight up working together to keep the Libertarians and the Greens out and then numbers way, way down.

      You know what, a trespasser will be prosecuted sign over a tiny fence or how about this https://www.google.com.au/maps... , complete insecure, no gate, yet claims of being able to prosecute with just a sign providing security.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously suggesting that Trump got in because of election fraud? I think you mean IN SPITE OF election fraud, on the part of Clinton supporters.
      Let me see: Trump had HUGE crowds at all of his campaign speeches, compared to Clinton. How do you explain that? All documented on video. This in spite of Clinton supporters blocking highways so that Trump supporters (or even - dare I say it - people who wanted to hear BOTH candidates speak, of which Trump was one) couldn't actually get to Trump's speeches!

      Electronic voting is a massive fraud, even worse than paper ballots, which are bad enough in themselves.
      There are plenty of verifiable methods of voting now available, but funnily enough, nobody seems to be pushing for them to be used.

    12. Re: Of course... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You really shouldn't let your hatred for somebody make your mouth start foaming and let your rational thinking go out the window. You are blinded by hate. It's not good for you mentally.

    13. Re: Of course... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Protecting companies is more importand than protecting the democratic proces.

      That said, I asume there already are laws about voting fraud. No need to ad 'using a computer'.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re: Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What are you talking about? It says right in TFS:

      The report says the law generally only prohibits against hacking computers "that are connected to the Internet (or that meet other narrow criteria for protection)" and notes that voting machines generally do not meet this criteria "as they are typically kept off the Internet."

      Now, I'll grant that use of the words "generally" and "typically" does allow for some voting machines to be connected to the internet, but you seem to be implying that voting machines are always connected to the internet. Are you saying that TFS is lying?

      It is ok if you are. Just please do not flat out ignore what TFS said and start talking about a position that involves assumptions you haven't bothered to define, makes it very hard to understand where you are coming from.

    15. Re: Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there is an Internet connection, go back three squares and miss a turn.

      Since it says right in TFS that there typically* isn't an Internet connection, and since you have provided nothing to dispute that, lose all of your reputation points.

      *Yes "typically" does allow some to be connected, but you are claiming that there is always an Internet connection.

    16. Re: Of course... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The Republicans in SCOTUS backed the cake shop not because of the Constitution (which backed the claimant) but to back their own.

      Take a look at the Court's decision. They actually refused to rule on the merits of the original case. The Court only decided that the state commission acted like jerks during the hearing about whether or not the baker violated state law, and that such open bias goes against the First Amendment.

      Clearly there are plenty of judges, including on the Supreme Court, who believe that the Establishment of Religion clause of the First Amendment gives people blanket ability to break any law that they want (the Hobby Lobby case already showed that), but this particular decision didn't do that.

    17. Re: Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of mental, perhaps you'd like a life?

    18. Re: Of course... by tbannist · · Score: 2

      It also says this in the summary:

      the government's assertion that the CFAA applies only to connected machines is news to legal experts.

      That's the nice way of saying "they government's position is a lie", especially since the CFAA was passed in 1986. It would be really, really surprising for a law to limit it's applicability to computers connected to the Internet almost a decade before the Internet became a mainstream phenomenon.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  2. Scare Tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This needs to be corrected right away! Clearly we need to put legislation into place that gives further government authority and oversight to our personal computers, whether they're connected to the internet or not.

    1. Re:Scare Tactic by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      This is just more prosecutor overreach. Just because a computer is being used does not mean that all the existing laws against fraud no longer applies. The reason they want these additional laws is so that they can tack on more and more charges. That way if the suspect is charged with ten crimes and for 8 of them the jury says "not guilty" at least two charges stuck...

    2. Re: Scare Tactic by jd · · Score: 1

      Computer misuse is not defined by connectivity.

      In the case of government computers, computer misuse involves breaking and entering government furnished equipment (GFE).

      However, if the computer had been properly secured to Orange Book standards, there would be no risks. The government was extremely stupid in choosing to have no standards.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  3. Trump : "Are you listening Russia?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pence/Guccifer 2020! NO COLLUSION (required)!

  4. The sky's the limit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We were told airliner SATCOM and flight control systems are not connected to the internet, too, right? Or the Windows XP machines that control nuclear fuel enrichment facilities? If I unplug the Ethernet cable from the back of my flatmate's Mac Book first, all's fair?

    I am really curious as to why they would take a position like this unless they want to actually encourage hacking election systems ("You'll be untouchable!" is the message) so that they'll some excuse when the numbers don't actually add up in their ordained successor's favor.

    1. Re:The sky's the limit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If not to encourage the hacking, then at least to protect the hackers they know about - and possibly assisted.

    2. Re:The sky's the limit! by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      or the Windows XP machines that control nuclear fuel enrichment facilities?

      WHAT

    3. Re: The sky's the limit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not quite true . The airgapped* XP machine would run the SCADA GUI connected to industrial controllers.

    4. Re: The sky's the limit! by MrMr · · Score: 1

      That's a relief
      I only get 400k hits on searching for Scada vulnerability (vs. 7.4M for XP)

    5. Re:The sky's the limit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think our nukes are run by advanced enough hardware to run Windows XP you're in for a sad surprise.

    6. Re:The sky's the limit! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I have zero doubt that this is the start of a "tactic" to try to get congress to create a new law to further some agenda they have.

      The CFAA does not say anything about being connected to the internet --- heck, when the law was passed most critical computer systems were mainframes accessed over terminals or dial-in modem.

      "Connecting" a keyboard+monitor or a USB device to a computer system "makes it a system you are connected to"

      To further solidify it as "protected"; the election folks should attach warning stickers to equipment cabinets and make sure any access ports are covered and sealed so the general public cannot touch.

      I'm pretty sure that deliberate tampering with government equipment in order to commit a fraud regarding elections will involve a number of criminal infractions.

  5. Re:Cool, I can hack to keep libtards away from off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The proper word is "it's", you fucking moron.

  6. Pretextual BS by nohup · · Score: 2

    They are only saying this as a pretextual excuse to try to convince lawmakers they need even more laws or statutory authority to punish "those evil hackers". Much like the ordeal with the FBI complaining about needing new laws to stop terrorists because Apple was protecting consumer privacy and not providing them backdoors to unlock phones or allowing them mass surveillance tools, when in reality they had all the tech they needed to unlock the phone.

    1. Re:Pretextual BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or these people are complicit and are being manipulated into conveniently rewriting laws to hide the perpetrators (who may even have been American).

      Don't worry, they only get to do this once. If there's mass civilian tampering with the machines in the next election then they'll reverse this decision quickly.

    2. Re:Pretextual BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, they are saying this because they hacked the voting machines in past elections and want immunity. They are all turning on each other and many of them have committed multiple felonies. Probably also did this and are preempting having to face jail for this as well.

    3. Re:Pretextual BS by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      They are only saying this as a pretextual excuse to try to convince lawmakers they need even more laws or statutory authority to punish "those evil hackers".

      Cool story bro. But the Justice department is on your side, unlike the FBI and the intel services. They serve at the direction of the President.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: Pretextual BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close. They need an excuse for when the democrats hack the election again, like they tried to do last time.

    5. Re: Pretextual BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds pretty plausible. Maybe a fixer paying people to literally steal the election.

    6. Re: Pretextual BS by jd · · Score: 1

      Easy solution.

      Put the Rainbow Series into law for government computers, where it isn't already.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re: Pretextual BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an unamerican twit who has no idea how a free country is supppsed to operate. And Hello! the FBI is part of the justice department.

  7. Repeal the CFAA by technosaurus · · Score: 2

    It's crap in many more ways than just this. Sorry but hacking your high school to change a grade doesn't deserve a harsher punishment than rape or assault.

  8. Cutting Cords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you can hack a computer if you slice off the ethernet cord first?

  9. So states could still freely prosecute them? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    I'm not seeing the problem. If they're not connected to the Internet, by definition the hacking occurred inside the state in question.

    1. Re: So states could still freely prosecute them? by jd · · Score: 1

      They are connected to the Internet, that's part of the problem. The DOJ doesn't even know what the problem is. The other part of the problem is violation of Rainbow Series.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Sabotage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Doesn't sabotaging a legal or an industrial process or a properly isolated power plant lead to charges in the US now?

  11. ah ; let me guess by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Trump is about to admit that the Russians cracked a number of voting machines, BUT, there is nothing that can be done about it.

    Seriously, it is an embarrassment that we do not have a generated ballot, with the printing done in the language that voter selects from each machine, and then is checked by voter before putting in the box. This should have happened clear back in the 00s, and we should require that now, or return back to butterfly election machine.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. Why would they say this? by ToTheStars · · Score: 2

    This is the Justice Department. They're all about using every law on the books to make their targets sweat (cf. Swartz, Aaron). Why would they ever state publicly that they can't do something?

    Maybe they want to prod Congress to "update" CFAA with even greater overreach (and maybe some language about cryptographic backdoors)? Or maybe they're pre-emptively covering their asses for not doing anything about electronic voting machines?

    1. Re:Why would they say this? by dcollins117 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the Justice Department. They're all about using every law on the books to make their targets sweat (cf. Swartz, Aaron). Why would they ever state publicly that they can't do something?

      They could have said nothing and everyone would assume if caught hacking voting machines they would be prosecuted. Here they are publicly stating there's no law against it and you can't be prosecuted. Go ahead and hack away. There's no downside to it. Sounds more like tacit permission if not downright encouragement to me.

    2. Re:Why would they say this? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Do they have to say "Russia, if you're listening" before the statement to make it obvious?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    3. Re:Why would they say this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why would they ever state publicly that they can't do something?"
      Because they don't want to start sweating every morning when they start the ignition in their cars.

      If people only knew how bad things are...

  13. ... with a computer by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If someone commits fraud by tampering with a traditional vote that is a crime. IANAL so I don't pretend to know exactly which crime. Just because they tamper with a computer tally rather than an old school tally it doesn't magically become legal. This is simply the old yarn that we need a special law that says "with a computer." If I bash someone over the head with a hammer and kill them it is murder. If I instead bash them with a computer and kill them it doesn't magically become legal. Of course if I ksh or ash them that is a different story :-)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:... with a computer by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      If I instead bash them with a computer and kill them it doesn't magically become legal. Of course if I ksh or ash them that is a different story :-)

      Now that's fsck-ing funny.

    2. Re:... with a computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is simply the old yarn that we need a special law that says "with a computer."

      Tell that to the patent lawyers who think that everything and every math algorithm we have been using for the past 1000 years, but "with a computer" is novel and patentable.

    3. Re:... with a computer by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      If you kill -9 their process, that isn't murder.

      What the lobby groups behind this are after is wide ranging laws that make it illegal to use anything containing a computer for anything other than its intended purpose. Presumably the purpose intended by the manufacturer, not the owner or end user of the product.

      One of the 12 temperature sensors in your MacBook is faulty? Sorry, you can't run 3rd party software to make the system ignore it. You must accept it running at the absolute slowest speed, or have an Authorised Apple Repair Agent replace the entire motherboard for $1000. Say goodbye to the data on that soldered on SSD.

  14. It's for getting coders to kill themselves by gavron · · Score: 1

    The CFAA is great for getting awesome coders to kill themselves. It does nothing to prevent computer abuse or fraud.

    The "Department of Justice" doesn't administer justice... only pain and injustice.

    E

  15. Bullshit by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that law couldn't be any broader if it tried. Thanks to it _any_ unauthorized access to a computer system is criminal. And so what if they can't use the CFAA. There's plenty of existing law to cover interfering with an election. They're after more powers, that's all.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yea, not real sure what the excuse is here but there is absolutely nothing that ties it to a network in CFAA. There is mention of network as an example, but not limited to. Even moreso is there nothing that ties it to 'the internet' since whatever you are referring to as 'the internet' today is wildly different than arpanet in 86, in both form and function.

      It was specifically used to go after dialup things ... you know like say Mitnick
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#Computer_hacking

  16. Seems about Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like the fcc saying that internet providers are "competitive" when there is only 1 ISP as long as there is another 1/2 a mile away from them. I wonder who is directing these perfectly reasonable legal thoughts/determinations.

  17. 10000 more votes than registered voters, no prob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Primitive action by powers that be for upcoming tomfoolery.

    If the ballot box is broken, it is the beginning of the end of US

  18. Just charge them with resisting arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    âoeCouldnâ(TM)t charge themâ????
    Resisting arrest
    Perjury
    Logan Act
    Broken taillight
    Alien and Sedition act
    Tax evasion
    Being a Trump supporter
    âoeStop resisting!â
    Endangered Species Act
    Zoning violations
    Not baking a cake
    Refusing to allow troops to be quartered in your Home during times of peace.

    So! Many! Choices!!!!

  19. It's preperation work by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're starting a narrative about a loophole in the laws for criminals to get away with violating the core of democracy and taking away your votes.

    Next step will be to introduce more restrictive, wide reaching laws. Probably along the lines of "it's illegal to use any computer system for any reason but its intended purpose".

    Finally, John Deere et. all will use the new laws to sue 3rd party repair agents and prosecute anyone who attempts to install "unintended" software on their products or work around restrictions they've put in place..

  20. Re:Cool, I can hack to keep libtards away from off by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Isn't the proper word "itâ(TM)s" ?

  21. The Justice Department is 100% correct by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 4, Informative

    The law uses the word "protected computer", which is defined as the following:

    a computerâ" (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
    (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.

    As voting machines are not a computer for a financial institution or the United States Government (they are a State Government owned device, not the federal "United Stated Government"), and they are also not used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication (they only communicate within their own State), voting machines fail to meet the standards as defined for a "protected computer" under the law.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:The Justice Department is 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may have been intentional - voting processes are strictly determined by each state. They can share techniques but there’s no federal standard and that’s on purpose because ash state is sovereign. If there was a federal law then the feds would have the right to inspect voting machines and declare them invalid or tampered with.

      Trump had enough trouble just trying to get the states to voluntarily turn over data for investigating alleged voter fraud - what if he had an actual law to do so forcibly?

    2. Re:The Justice Department is 100% correct by burtosis · · Score: 2

      If only we had some way to store hard copies of each vote that were unhackable, easily counted without technical skill, and on a media that would easily last months or years without degrading under typical room conditions. Ahh well, guess it's just 100% electronic and hope for the best.

    3. Re:The Justice Department is 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any computer used in a federal election (even though run at the state level) arguably by as "used... for...the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government"

      State elections would be right out though.

    4. Re:The Justice Department is 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The section makes no claims regarding ownership, only use. Any state owned machine used *for* a federal election would be solidly covered by this law.

      I mean, if the DOJ had any intention at all of trying to enforce it.

    5. Re:The Justice Department is 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure we covered this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

      If that was considered "interstate commerce" there is no way that voting machines do not affect interstate commerce.

    6. Re:The Justice Department is 100% correct by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      So basically, the issue is that a crime that occurs entirely within a single state is outside their jurisdiction, which makes sense. States can pass their own version of the CFAA, prosecute anyone that violates the state law, and probably ask the FBI for assistance if the FBI has specialized tools or experts that the state doesn't have.

    7. Re:The Justice Department is 100% correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... voting machines fail to meet the standards as defined for a "protected computer" under the law.

      Federal Law. How are the State laws?

  22. So hacking an ATM perfectly ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not connected to Internet. Uses cellular network.

  23. Federal Law Missing in Action by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    It looks like this is currently handled on a statewide basis. Some states have no law regarding voting machine tampering, some punish it with a fine, some classify it as a misdemeanor, and some as a felony.

      http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/state-statutes-prohibiting-tampering-with-voting-systems.aspx

    It would help if there were a federal law with substantial criminal penalties. No need really to invoke "computers" at all.

  24. Juuuust breath... by DalM · · Score: 1

    You can't rig a national election by hacking physical voting machines. You *might* be able to change the votes on that machine. You *might* even be able to change multiple machines if you happen to have access to them.

    But in elections decided by thousands upon thousands of votes, It's just not possible to physically hack that many voting machines to make a difference.

  25. Treason? by ChoGGi · · Score: 2

    Can't they just be charged with treason?

    1. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Treason is very specific; I can't see hacking a machine to be "Levying War"...

  26. Depends on how close it is by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we've got elections going by a few thousand votes right now, so I'm inclined to say you could.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. This is what a third-world shithole looks like. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Enjoy you BIGLY fall to African levels... fuck you gais!

  28. The overreach you wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you didn't want a weak prosecutor or weak laws, did you? So you got vague laws that can be twisted any which way, and a DoJ set up not to do justice but to produce convictions by the spaghetti method.

    Take the "computer hacking" law, which conveniently forgets to define what this "hacking" thing is. Thanks to this but also thanks to entertainment, media, and even the computer security s'kiddie cowboys themselves, "hacking" hasn't ment anything of substance in a long time. And that makes "hackers" into all-powerful elusive bogeymen of the cyber spaces.

    So the prosecutor here is complaining they can't prosecute the bogeymen of the cybertubes. Well of course not, or they wouldn't be bogeymen.

  29. Re:Cool, I can hack to keep libtards away from off by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Isn't the proper word "ita(TM)s" ?

    No, I'm fairly sure it's "it's" (tm).

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  30. Re: Cool, I can hack to keep libtards away from of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure it would count as election tampering, and if that's not already more serious than the CFAA, then that's a bigger problem.

  31. say no to voting machines by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 1

    just say no to voting machines without paper trail.

  32. Re:Cool, I can hack to keep libtards away from off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol rustled soyboy btfo

  33. WindBourne's fact check - TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lie / claim with no evidence - Trump admitting

    verdict - just likes the sound of his own voice, anti Trump

    1. Re: WindBourne's fact check - TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Learn English, comrade.

      Send us your personal address. I would love to strangle you to death with an Ethernet cord.

  34. No connectivity at all should be allowed. by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

    No connectivity at all should be allowed for any voting machine. At the end of the night, the machines should be shifted into tally mode. From that point on, all they're capable of is to print their tally along with a timestamp, machine ID, and cryptographically secure hash. Scan the sheets and transmit to the election board. There's a bit more stuff in the middle to prevent stuffed tally sheets and other problems; but the math is sound, fraudsters easily detected, and privacy protected.

    If any company really wants to make a case that their voting machines are the best, all they need to do is let them be attacked at Defcon, Blackhat, and the like and see what happens.

  35. what machines were hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is no evidence any of machines were hacked, this is just more anti-trump paranoid delusion from democrat party. regular hard working americans like us on Slashdot.Org know better.

    1. Re:what machines were hacked? by DalM · · Score: 1

      Right, it's easy in a lab, but almost impossible to actually hack a voting machine in the field.

      It's a whole lot easier to just make laws that basically ban your opponent's base from being able to vote at all. That's what republicans have done. Democrats need to move on from the voting booth non-issues and focus on that.

  36. Headline is outright untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clickbait headline much? Of course they can prosecute someone hacking voting machines on probably a dozen different charges. This removes only one.

  37. huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are unable to prosecute those who keep us elected!"

  38. Open message to the DOJ by sjames · · Score: 1

    Never mind the computer, tampering with an election is a crime even if it uses paper ballots. Quit spending all of our money lobbying for more power and more laws with scare tactics and do your damned job.

  39. Oh, awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No problem, with Russia hacking the voting systems, just so long as I'm the last one hacking the systems, my candidate will win.

  40. That's obviously not true. by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

    The CFAA was deliberately designed and had been used to prosecute literally anything. This is a bullshit argument.

  41. Paper ballot by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Personally, I do away with ANY electronic ballot. Yeah, paper ones are a PITA, but, can't really be hacked unless someone dumps a ton of them into an election polling place. Also, the purple ink you see some 3rd world countries would be a good idea as well, and if "the fashionable" types wouldn't like that, go with a slightly invisible ink.

  42. "A government of laws and not of men" by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

    This is about the rule of law.

    The government is not supposed to prosecute someone just because it seems to be the right thing to do. If the relevant law(s) define the crime(s) too narrowlly, that is a problem. But in general, we want laws to be as narrow as possible, so people can know what is "against the law".

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
  43. https://youtu.be/XUeHi47Lovo by ASSIYA · · Score: 1

    (Death Sea)!! !! islamic history bangla dubbing.islamic history bangla video.islamic history bangla language.islamic history books in bangla free download pdf.islamic history books in bangla.islamic history video .bangla.prophet stories.allah, islamic history bangla video download. #banglatechaaak #deathsea Thanks for Watching this video For More Video, Don't forget to subscribe.....