Cyber crime trial goes nowhere but on debate
Urip Hudiono, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
There was a defendant, a panel of judges and prosecutors inside a court room at the Central Jakarta District Court on Tuesday.
The third session of the trial of Dani Firmansyah, the alleged hacker of the General Elections Commission (KPU) website, was already underway, but the court was still debating the virtual "attack".
"Had it (the attack) actually caused a physical disturbance or an electromagnetic disturbance?" Dani's lawyer Mukhtar Zuhdy asked KPU information technology (IT) team head Achyar Oemry, referring to the exact wording of Law No. 36/1999 on telecommunications.
Witness Achyar merely replied that "the display of KPU's website had been altered", although he did not know if such an event could be defined as a "physical or electromagnetic disturbance".
He added that the break-in on April 17 had caused the website to go off-line for some three hours and had ruined the public's trust in KPU's IT system, which is worth some Rp 152 billion (US$16.38 million).
Prosecutor Ramos Horta tried to pinpoint the "illegal access" aspect of the break-in, as Achyar said there were only six people who had the right to access the KPU's website, including altering its contents.
Presiding judge Hamdi intervened in the debate and told the trial that they would have to wait for testimonies from expert witnesses to define what was exactly meant by "disturbance".
With the absence of a cyber law, Dani has been charged under Article 22 of the Telecommunication Law for illegally accessing a telecommunication network and/or service, and Article 38 of the law for causing physical or electromagnetic disturbance to a telecommunication service.
Dani could face a maximum sentence of six years in prison and/or a fine of Rp 600 million as stipulated in the law's Articles 50 and 58 respectively if found guilty of committing either crime.
In the last session on Aug. 31, the defense team had questioned witness Comr. Petrus Napitu, an officer of the Jakarta Police cyber crime unit who was on duty monitoring KPU's display of the legislative election tally count, when he said that an "attack" had likely occurred on KPU's website.
The defense team questioned the word "attack", as there was no physical evidence that such an attack had taken place.
They also questioned the electronic evidence presented by the cyber crime unit chief Sr. Comr. Petrus Golose, as Article 184 of the Criminal Code Procedures stipulates that legal evidence shall only include testimonies from witnesses, experts and defendants, as well as documents.
Other witnesses in Tuesday's session were two other officers from the cyber crime unit, Second Insp. Sugeng Priyadi and Comr. Parmin. They testified as to how they had managed to trace Dani and eventually apprehended him at his office at PT Danareksa.
The trial was adjourned until Sept. 14 to hear more testimonies from witnesses.