Unless I'm misunderstanding the word, "tampering" implies "making alterations to"
Every thread on this topic has some hackers making bad assumptions about how law works based on naive definitions. You've got to understand that law doesn't operate on binary distinctions and that interpretation is an extremely moveable feast.
What binary distinctions and naive definitions are you possibly talking about?
To give you some context:
Before writing that comment, I looked up a dictionary entry for "tampering", to be sure my knowledge of the ordinary meaning of the word is correct.
Then I looked up and did a quick cursory check on a bunch of laws that included the word, focusing on (but not limiting to) those that mentioned tampering with an aircraft or machinery, or tampering with communications technology of some sort.
During that check I found that everything I found either explicitly mentioned or implied making changes of some sort: alteration, removal, damage, concealment, obstruction, etc.. So while I haven't found an explicit legal definition I hoped for, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that legal concept of tampering would generally conform to the dictionary definition in this regard.
And thus down the thread I made a suggestion that it's unlikely (no binary here) to apply to the situation. So I asked "how?", to see if I'm missing something, explaining that I personally don't see how "tampering" is applicable.
Yet, your comment suggests me that I wrote something wrong. While I recognize the "vehicle" example (that I happen to know about) is not entirely dissimilar to the "tampering" here, I'm still missing your point.
Every thread on this topic has some hackers making bad assumptions about how law works based on naive definitions. You've got to understand that law doesn't operate on binary distinctions and that interpretation is an extremely moveable feast.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45153