It seems clear to me that it's a bad idea to amend criminal law with CISA if anyone expects CISA to pass (reminder: CISA does not already include criminal statutes).

But before reading Nadia Kayyali's summary, you'd be well served by reading the actual amendment, linked at the top of the article. There are 4 proposed offenses:

1. "Stopping The Sale Of Americans' Financial Information"

This proposal amends the current text:

(h) Any person who, outside the jurisdiction of the United
States, engages in any act that, if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States, would constitute an
offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, shall
be subject to the fines, penalties, imprisonment, and
forfeiture provided in this title if—

(1) the offense involves an access device issued, owned,
managed, or controlled by a financial institution, account
issuer, credit card system member, or other entity within
the jurisdiction of the United States; and

(2) the person transports, delivers, conveys, transfers to
or through, or otherwise stores, secrets, or holds within
the jurisdiction of the United States, any article used to
assist in the commission of the offense or the proceeds of
such offense or property derived therefrom.

To instead read:

(h) Any person who, outside the jurisdiction of the United
States, engages in any act that, if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States, would constitute an
offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, shall
be subject to the fines, penalties, imprisonment, and
forfeiture provided in this title if the offense involves an
access device issued, owned, managed, or controlled by a
financial institution, account issuer, credit card system member,
or other entity organized under the laws of the United States,
or any State, the District of Columbia, or other Territory
of the United States.

Notice that the larger graf in Whitehouse's amendment is essentially (h) and (1) combined, with a more precise definition for "entity".

I went looking for an explanation of the change and couldn't find one, but my guess is that it solves a jurisdictional problem that prevented 18 USC 1029 from being deployed in practice.

It is also not clear how this change is "tailor-made to help indiscriminate prosecution"; if that's the case, it seems like it must also be the case that the original 18 USC 1029 was as well!

Kayyali is an attorney and should be able to explain the logic here.

2. "Shutting Down Botnets"

To the existing fraud statute in 18 USC 1345, Whitehouse's amendment would add a fourth case, following "conspiracy to defraud the US government", "committing banking law violations", and "committing Federal health care fraud", that would read:

(D) violating or about to violate paragraph (1), (4), (5), or (7) of section 1030(a)
[the CFAA] where such conduct would affect 100 or more protected computers (as defined
in section 1030) during any 1-year period, including by denying access to or operation
of the computers, installing malicious software on the computers, or using the computers
without authorization.

Essentially, this seems to create a new offense (presumably cross-chargeable with the CFAA itself, like the wire fraud statutes are) of "CFAAing more than 100 computers in a year".

This seems well-intentioned but overbroad. A change from 100 to 1000 computers might make more sense. A "knowing" standard, so that you can't be charged for a single offense that happens to touch 100 computers you didn't know existed, might also be helpful. It's also a fair argument that we perhaps don't need new law to clamp down on botnets, which are probably already black-letter illegal.

3. "Aggravated Damage To A Critical Infrastructure Computer"

42 USC 5195 defines "critical infrastructure" as systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters. Whitehouse's bill would attach more severe CFAA penalties to knowingly damage critical infrastructure, if the attack involved actually could have impaired critical infrastructure.

Language to this effect has been part of several proposed amendments to CFAA.

Kayyali claims this amendment is "redundant". Presumably, that's because PATRIOT already defines "critical infrastructure" and the CFAA already criminalizes any attacks on any computer? Otherwise, I don't see where a statute exists that would attach greater penalties to attacks that (say) took down the power grid, or halted trading on exchanges. The location of that statute in existing law would be a helpful clarification for Kayyali to provide.

Kayyali invokes CFAA's "draconian penalties". I agree: the penalty mechanism in CFAA is egregiously broken (indeed, I think it's the only totally broken part of CFAA). But this particular amendment seems like a poor place to make that stand, cabined as it is on attacks that citizens in the US would overwhelmingly want criminalized!

Remember, under Whitehouse's initial proposed language, you have to know you're attacking the power grid, or the 911 dispatching system, or the NYSE, and the attack you employ has to be plausible.

4. "Stopping Trafficking In Botnets"

18 USC 1030 (a)(6), part of the CFAA, currently reads:

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as
defined in section 1029) in any password or similar
information through which a computer may be accessed without
authorization, if—

(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce;
or

(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the
United States;

Whitehouse would prefer it read instead:

(6) knowing such conduct to be wrongful, intentionally trafficks
in any password or other similar information, or any other means
of access, further knowing or having reason to know that a
protected computer would be accessed or damaged without authorization
in a manner prohibited by this section as the result of such
trafficking.

This really pissed Kayyali off, because "knowing such conduct to be wrongful" is a phrase that appears nowhere else in the US code. That
probably does mean the language would need to be changed. However:
the term "knowing" is plastered all over the US code and has a meaning
that appears to stretch all the way back to Common Law, and "wrongful"
has a legal definition ("would expose you to criminal prosecution").

It's unclear from Kayyali's summary, but given the context, this appears to be the basis for Kayyali's concern that the amendment will be a "threat to security research".

Finally, I can't resist pointing out the bogus emotional appeal that leads off Kayyali's analysis. Kayyali would like you to believe that overzealous prosecutors can charge you under the CFAA for violating the terms of service of a website. But of course Kayyali is aware that after Nosal, that interpretation of CFAA has famously been rejected by the entire Ninth Circuit and is now unlikely to get much oxygen elsewhere.