A few months ago, the blockchain-based voting app Voatz was attained by the researchers at MIT to analyze the so-called security vulnerabilities. Later, while criticizing the academicians, the voting app stated that despite relying on assumptions, they could have just asked for access to the server.
Recently, Voatz reported to the US Supreme Court that without the permission and supervision of the company, the third-party researchers would not be able to research others’ systems.
On September 03, during the hearing of Van Buren vs. the United States in the country’s high court, Voatz filed an amicus brief.
Although the blockchain-based voting app was not part of the trial, still it has a stake in the outcome, therefore, he submitted a legal argument in the court.
As per the report, Nathan Van Buren, a former sergeant in Georgia police, told an individual that in order to gain access to a law enforcement database, the person should give him money.
Soon the FBI got its hand on Van Buren. The US law enforcement agency organized a sting operation to apprehend Van Buren, which was a success. The report further stated that Van Buren has been found guilty of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
However, after he was apprehended, Van Buren stated that the FBI could not impose CFAA on him, as he himself had access to the law enforcement database.
Further, he argued that although he was not allowed to share the details with some random person for money, he did not hack anything.
Currently, the case has been moved to the Supreme Court and now it will rule, “whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates...the [CFAA] if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.”
Many of the civil liberties group and criminal justice organization feel that this case has the potential to set a great paradigm.