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

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.

Comments

Of course...

[GerryGilmore]

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

Re:Of course...

[Freischutz]

...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.

The sky's the limit!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

... with a computer

[Zero__Kelvin]

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 :-)

It's preperation work

[viperidaenz]

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..

The Justice Department is 100% correct

[Fallen Kell]

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.

Re:Why would they say this?

[dcollins117]

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.

Depends on how close it is

[rsilvergun]

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