IT Expert Admits There Is Potential For CDR Data Leakage, Hasto Kubu Highlights Validation Process

JAKARTA - The attorney for the Secretary-General of the PDI-P, Hasto Kristiyanto, Arman Hanis, highlighted the potential for leakage and data manipulation in the Call Detail Record (CDR) which is one of the evidences of the Public Prosecutor (JPU) at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

The potential leak was conveyed by a technology and information system expert, Bob Hardian Syahbuddin, who was presented by the prosecutor to explain the technical aspects related to CDR at the trial of the alleged bribery case for the Inter-Time Substitution (PAW) of members of the DPR and the obstruction of the investigation.

Arman Hanis in the trial asked whether there was a risk of leakage or data manipulation when experts received and examined the CDR submitted by KPK investigators.

Ahli tadi sudah menyampaikan bahwa ada data yang diberikan oleh penyidik, ya? Dan ahli sudah meneliti dan lain-lain. Pertanyaan saya mengenai CDR tersebut, CDR yang diberikan itu menurut ketertik ahli apakah pada saat ahli terima, apakah ada risiko leaka atau pemanipuan data? tanyakan Arman dalam persidangan di Pengadilan Tipikor Jakarta, Senin, 26 Mei.

In response to this, Bob said that in principle, there is always a risk of this potential, especially because he does not have comparative data to verify the truth of the CDR.

"If we talk about risks, of course there are risks. Because I don't have a comparison whether it's true or not," Bob replied.

Arman then reiterated the expert's statement acknowledging the possibility of leakage or data manipulation in the process of handing over or examining the CDR.

"It means there is a risk of leakage and data manipulation when an expert receives it, right? There is that risk?" Arman asked again.

"Yes, it could be," replied Bob.

Meanwhile, another Hasto attorney, Febri Diansyah, also highlighted the CDR data validation process submitted by KPK investigators. Because, must go through various ways or stages of examination to ensure the correctness of the data.

"If there are three people with a lot of movements, relatively many human movements, you have to check the data excel, be young where the position is, which BTS and others. Then you have to also check with other supporters," said Febri.

"If you are given all the data, you need to make sure the study results are valid, how much time do you need? Is it enough for one day or two days?" continued Febri.

However, in his testimony, Bob said it did not take long. Within a period of one or two, the truth of the data can be ascertained.

"Yes, if the data is only complete, it doesn't take long, I can do it for one day or two," said Bob.

In the alleged bribery case, Hasto was jointly charged with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah; the former convict of the Harun Masiku case, Saeful Bahri; and Harun Masiku gave money amounting to 57,350 Singapore dollars or equivalent to Rp600 million to Wahyu in the 2019-2020 period.

The money is allegedly given with the aim that Wahyu seeks the KPU to approve an interim replacement request (PAW) for the Elected Legislative Candidate for the Electoral Region (Dapil) of South Sumatra (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR Members for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

In addition, Hasto was also charged with obstructing the investigation by ordering Harun, through the Aspiration House guard, Nur Hasan, to submerge Harun's cell phone into the water after the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) arrested members of the General Election Commission (KPU) for the 2017-2022 period Wahyu Setiawan.

Not only Harun Masiku's cellphone, Hasto is also said to have ordered his aide, Kusnadi, to drown his cell phone in anticipation of forced attempts by KPK investigators.

Hasto is threatened with a crime as regulated in Article 21 and Article 5 Paragraph (1) letter a or Article 13 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 65 Paragraph (1) and Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1 jo. Article 64 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code