Criminal Law - Interference With Critical Infrastructure or a Public Safety Answering Point
HB 593 expands Maryland’s computer crime law to specifically address interference with critical infrastructure and public safety answering points (PSAPs). The bill amends Criminal Law § 7-302 to add new prohibitions against intentionally, willfully, and without authorization committing computer-related acts that deny access to an authorized user or interrupt or impair the functioning of critical infrastructure or a 911/public safety answering point. It also defines “critical infrastructure” broadly to include systems and assets vital to public security, economic security, public health, public safety, public transportation, and public utilities.
The bill builds on existing prohibitions against unauthorized access, copying, possession of access codes, and ransomware-related conduct. It increases criminal penalties for violations tied to critical infrastructure or PSAPs, making a violation of the new subsection a felony punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $50,000, or both. The act takes effect October 1, 2026, and applies statewide to conduct affecting government systems, utilities, health care facilities, public schools, and other critical services covered by the amended statute.
HB 593 amends Maryland’s Criminal Law Article, Section 7-302, by adding new offenses and penalties related to cyber interference with critical infrastructure and public safety answering points. It broadens the statute’s reach beyond general computer misuse to cover attacks or unauthorized acts that disrupt access to or operation of essential systems, including 911 call centers and infrastructure supporting public safety, health, transportation, and utilities. The bill creates a new felony penalty tier for these acts and reinforces existing penalties for unauthorized access, malware, and ransomware-related conduct.
The available record shows the bill was enacted and approved by the Governor, with no recorded committee transcript excerpts or vote breakdowns indicating opposition or amendment debate. The overall sentiment appears supportive and security-oriented, reflecting a legislative focus on protecting essential services from cyber disruption. The absence of recorded dissent in the provided materials suggests the measure moved forward without notable public controversy in the available record.
The main policy issue underlying the bill is the scope of what counts as “critical infrastructure” and how broadly the new felony offense may apply to cyber conduct affecting essential services. Potential points of contention include the breadth of the definition, the severity of the 10-year felony penalty, and whether the statute could reach conduct involving research, testing, or other unauthorized access scenarios near critical systems. The bill text itself addresses some of these concerns by preserving an exception for bona fide scientific, educational, governmental, testing, news, or similar justification for possessing ransomware, but no specific stakeholder objections or committee disputes are included in the provided history.