Cyber crime trial goes nowhere but on debate<\/p>\n
Urip Hudiono, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
There was a defendant, a panel of judges and prosecutors inside a
\ncourt room at the Central Jakarta District Court on Tuesday.<\/p>\n
The third session of the trial of Dani Firmansyah, the alleged
\nhacker of the General Elections Commission (KPU) website, was
\nalready underway, but the court was still debating the virtual
\n\"attack\".<\/p>\n
\"Had it (the attack) actually caused a physical disturbance or
\nan electromagnetic disturbance?\" Dani's lawyer Mukhtar Zuhdy
\nasked KPU information technology (IT) team head Achyar Oemry,
\nreferring to the exact wording of Law No. 36\/1999 on
\ntelecommunications.<\/p>\n
Witness Achyar merely replied that \"the display of KPU's
\nwebsite had been altered\", although he did not know if such an
\nevent could be defined as a \"physical or electromagnetic
\ndisturbance\".<\/p>\n
He added that the break-in on April 17 had caused the website
\nto go off-line for some three hours and had ruined the public's
\ntrust in KPU's IT system, which is worth some Rp 152 billion
\n(US$16.38 million).<\/p>\n
Prosecutor Ramos Horta tried to pinpoint the \"illegal access\"
\naspect of the break-in, as Achyar said there were only six people
\nwho had the right to access the KPU's website, including altering
\nits contents.<\/p>\n
Presiding judge Hamdi intervened in the debate and told the
\ntrial that they would have to wait for testimonies from expert
\nwitnesses to define what was exactly meant by \"disturbance\".<\/p>\n
With the absence of a cyber law, Dani has been charged under
\nArticle 22 of the Telecommunication Law for illegally accessing a
\ntelecommunication network and\/or service, and Article 38 of the
\nlaw for causing physical or electromagnetic disturbance to a
\ntelecommunication service.<\/p>\n
Dani could face a maximum sentence of six years in prison
\nand\/or a fine of Rp 600 million as stipulated in the law's
\nArticles 50 and 58 respectively if found guilty of committing
\neither crime.<\/p>\n
In the last session on Aug. 31, the defense team had
\nquestioned witness Comr. Petrus Napitu, an officer of the Jakarta
\nPolice cyber crime unit who was on duty monitoring KPU's display
\nof the legislative election tally count, when he said that an
\n\"attack\" had likely occurred on KPU's website.<\/p>\n
The defense team questioned the word \"attack\", as there was no
\nphysical evidence that such an attack had taken place.<\/p>\n
They also questioned the electronic evidence presented by the
\ncyber crime unit chief Sr. Comr. Petrus Golose, as Article 184 of
\nthe Criminal Code Procedures stipulates that legal evidence shall
\nonly include testimonies from witnesses, experts and defendants,
\nas well as documents.<\/p>\n
Other witnesses in Tuesday's session were two other officers
\nfrom the cyber crime unit, Second Insp. Sugeng Priyadi and Comr.
\nParmin. They testified as to how they had managed to trace Dani
\nand eventually apprehended him at his office at PT Danareksa.<\/p>\n
The trial was adjourned until Sept. 14 to hear more
\ntestimonies from witnesses.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/cyber-crime-trial-goes-nowhere-but-on-debate-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}