The more hard-hearted feel that the best place for such a prolific virus writer is behind bars, pointing out that many of Jaschan's creations remain the most prevalent viruses today. What kind of message is sent to today's virus writers if young Sven skips off into the sunset to paint a few retirement homes? But those on the side of clemency argue that Jaschan was only 17 at the time, and that he didn't profit personally from his misdeeds.
Whether it's a good idea in principle to jail young people for acts of stupidity is a matter for eternal debate. In this case, though, the German court has made the right decision.
Jaschan is small fry. His viruses caused no end of disruption to IT systems around the globe, but such vandalism is no longer the problem that once it was. We have learned from them, as doubtless has Jaschan.
Today's challenge is the rise of the organised cybercriminal, who uses viruses and Trojan horses to take over our computers, or steal our identities and then our money. Next to these offenders, Jaschan is a twenty-first century Just William who found breaking Windows a source of mischievous pleasure but gave no thought to the cost of the clean-up.
Those who find his sentence and its justification inadequate should turn their displeasure to practical ends. The really serious online offenders out there need to be caught. High-tech police forces have long complained that their work is being hampered because companies who suffer hacking attacks suffer in silence or, even worse, pay ransom money to make the bad guys go away. This is a disservice to everyone.
Whatever happens to Jaschan, his misconceived creations will continue to circulate around the Web for months to come — which should serve as a reminder that many PCs still aren't patched against the vulnerabilities he exploited. But the legacy of his misdeeds should produce more than that. It should be the start of a pact across the IT sector to stand together in the face of organised cybercrime.
Talkback
The reason for release.
It may sound frustrating, but the fact is that criminal liability, including liability for cyber crimes, can be fixed only if there is a culpable intention behind the same. This culpable intention is again bifurcated as per the “maturity level” of the offender. If he is a major and matured person, he has to face the consequences of his act or omission. But if the accused is a “juvenile” or “minor” then the law will presume him to be a “deviant” rather than “criminal”.
The suspended sentence and the release on probation is a benign step in right direction. It is as per the mandates and theme of “The Convention on the Rights of the Child”, to which most of the countries, including India, are parties. Now the options available to the learned and respected Judge, dealing with a “juvenile deviant”, are very few when it comes to sentencing if a country is party to such Convention or if the municipal law contains provisions for the protection of juveniles.
The learned judge has ordered for (a) Community service, (b) Suspended sentence, and (c) Probationary period.
These were the possible options available to the respected and learned Judge. There is, however, an option that could have been exercised in this case. The Judge could have asked, with due respect to the judgment, to render the “community service” in the form of assisting the “law enforcement agencies” in making the security system more effective and tamper proof. The “malware knowledge” of the accused could be used for strengthening the security base of the Internet at large. Recently, there was news that the creator of the “Sasser worm” has been hired as a “security software programmer” by a German firm, so that he can make firewalls, which will stop suspected files from entering computer systems. (The Times Of India (Delhi Times); “ Net gain for e-crime”, D/ 20-09-04, P-5.) The same could have been done for the purpose of “Securing Inetrnet at large” in public interest.
In any case, the decision of the learned Judge is as per the requirements of law, though it may be agitated on the basis of the “moral liability” and the “extreme damage” caused by the act of the accused. But since the accused did not derive any monetary or financial gain out of his “immature act”, he was rightly realeased on rationale terms.