Justice Department Warns It Might Not Be Able To Prosecute Voting Machine Hackers (vice.com) 102
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.
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.
Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In the land of lies, truth is treason.
Re:Of course... (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.
Re: Of course... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 sig
Re: (Score:2)
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 Ho
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Of course... (Score:3)
Since they are connected to the Internet, and yet the government claims the law doesn't apply, not having a reason changes nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
It also says this in the summary:
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.
Re: Of course... (Score:3)
Since there is an Internet connection, go back three squares and miss a turn.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Scare Tactic (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: Scare Tactic (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
The proper word is "it's", you fucking moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the proper word "itâ(TM)s" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the proper word "ita(TM)s" ?
No, I'm fairly sure it's "it's" (tm).
Re: Cool, I can hack to keep libtards away from of (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.
Trump : "Are you listening Russia?" (Score:1)
Pence/Guccifer 2020! NO COLLUSION (required)!
The sky's the limit! (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only get 400k hits on searching for Scada vulnerability (vs. 7.4M for XP)
Re: (Score:2)
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 w
Pretextual BS (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.
Re: (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".
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.
Re: Pretextual BS (Score:2)
Easy solution.
Put the Rainbow Series into law for government computers, where it isn't already.
Repeal the CFAA (Score:3)
Cutting Cords (Score:1)
So you can hack a computer if you slice off the ethernet cord first?
So states could still freely prosecute them? (Score:2)
I'm not seeing the problem. If they're not connected to the Internet, by definition the hacking occurred inside the state in question.
Re: So states could still freely prosecute them? (Score:2)
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.
Sabotage (Score:2)
Doesn't sabotaging a legal or an industrial process or a properly isolated power plant lead to charges in the US now?
ah ; let me guess (Score:3)
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.
Re: WindBourne's fact check - TROLL (Score:1)
Learn English, comrade.
Send us your personal address. I would love to strangle you to death with an Ethernet cord.
Why would they say this? (Score:3)
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?
Re:Why would they say this? (Score:5, 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.
"A government of laws and not of men" (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have to say "Russia, if you're listening" before the statement to make it obvious?
... with a computer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
It's for getting coders to kill themselves (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
Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (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
It's preperation work (Score:5, 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..
The Justice Department is 100% correct (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal Law Missing in Action (Score:2)
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 [ncsl.org]
It would help if there were a federal law with substantial criminal penalties. No need really to invoke "computers" at all.
Juuuust breath... (Score:2)
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.
Depends on how close it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Treason? (Score:3)
Can't they just be charged with treason?
say no to voting machines (Score:2)
No connectivity at all should be allowed. (Score:2)
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
Open message to the DOJ (Score:2)
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.
That's obviously not true. (Score:2)
Paper ballot (Score:1)
https://youtu.be/XUeHi47Lovo (Score:1)