• silicon.com
• Technology
• Security

By Will Sturgeon, 22 January 2003 17:13

NEWS The two-year prison sentence handed down to Welsh virus writer Simon Vallor yesterday has failed to appease many UK computer users, who are calling for harsher sentences in such cases. Almost half the people surveyed by anti-virus firm Sophos said two years is too lenient. More than two thirds agreed that a prison sentence of some kind is the most appropriate punishment. Only 14 per cent said a community service order, such as that handed down by the Dutch authorities to the writer of the Kournikova virus last year, would be a fitting punishment. Graham Clulely, senior technology consultant at Sophos, said: "Businesses seem to have little sympathy for Vallor - indeed, almost half of the survey respondents indicated that his two year sentence wasn't tough enough. This hard line suggests companies must be completely cheesed off with cybercriminals." silicon.com readers also have very little sympathy for Vallor judging by some of the comments we have received. "Good," said Ivan Noble, adding that the sentence is "not long enough". Another reader reasoned: "I wonder what the cost was of disinfecting those machines [Vallor's viruses infected]. I suspect it would run into the millions. "If that amount had been stolen in a fraud, the sentence would have been rather more than two years. I reckon that Simon Vallor got off extremely lightly. Pound for pound, his sentence should have been ten times longer." However, one reader, Marcus Dyson, believes the treatment of Vallor highlights a bigger problem within the criminal justice system. He said: "We live in a world where car thieves, burglars, rapists and murderers walk the streets, but a programmer gets a custodial sentence. "I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but let's get the priorities right, jail for criminals before jail for script kiddies."