Government's Memo in
U.S. v. Jeffrey Lee Parson
Introduction
On 11 August 2003, the first version of the Blaster (also called MS Blaster, MSBlast, or Lovsan) worm was found.
Subsequently, many variants of this worm appeared.
On 13 Aug 2003, Jeffrey Parson, then a few weeks past his 18th birthday, released the Blaster.B worm
from his house near Minneapolis. On 19 Aug 2003, federal agents searched Parson's house on suspicion that he had
released a malicious computer program, and Parson was arrested on 29 Aug 2003.
On 11 Aug 2004, Jeffrey Lee Parson pled guilty.
On 28 Jan 2005, Parson was sentenced
by Judge Pechman in U.S. District Court in Seattle. Parson and the U.S. Government Prosecutors were unable to
agree on the amount of restitution that Parson should be ordered to pay.
On 29 Mar 2005, Microsoft settled with Parson.
This document is an HTML version of the Prosecution's Memorandum Concerning Restitution to Individual Victims,
which is the sole remaining issue in the case of U.S. v. Jeffrey Lee Parson.
I have posted this Memorandum from the Blaster.B case because:
- prosecution and punishment of people for writing
or releasing a computer virus/worm has been rare;
- the monetary value of damage caused by the release of a computer virus/worm is rarely determined in a Court;
- I hope that readers will see the seriousness of writing or
releasing malicious computer programs, such as a virus or worm; and
- I hope to assist professors of computer science to teach ethical behavior to their students.
Because I believe that this historical document should be readily available,
I acquired a photocopy from the court clerk of
the U.S. District Court in Seattle,
scanned it, used optical character recognition software to convert
the document to ASCII text, formatted the text in HTML,
and posted it on the Internet at my website.
Ronald B. Standler
30 March 2005
[Government's Memorandum -- Page 1 of 3]
U.S. District Court
Western District of Washington
At Seattle
United States of America v. Jeffrey Lee Parson
Government's Memorandum
Concerning Restitution to
Individual Victims of Defendant's
Variant of Blaster Worm
Case Number: CR03-0379P
The United States of America, by John McKay, United States Attorney, and Annette L. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney
for the Western District of Washington, files this Memorandum Concerning Restitution to Individual Victims of Defendant's Variant of Blaster Worm.
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM
As set forth in the Stipulated Motion to Order Restitution to Microsoft Corporation, Approve Settlement Agreement, and For Order Satisfying Judgment of Restitution to Microsoft,
the parties have resolved -- subject to the Court's approval -- the Microsoft restitution issues in this case.
The only remaining restitution issue relates to the individual victims who provided specific information to the government concerning their losses
resulting from the defendant's variant of the Blaster worm.
The parties are in agreement as to who those victims are. The only area of disagreement
[Government's Memorandum -- Page 2 of 3]
is the amount of restitution due to those individual victims. The government urges the Court to order restitution to the individual victims consistent with the losses they described in their Victim Impact Statements.
See Attachment A (Victim Impact Statements).
Those amounts are as follows:
Rita Martin $549.98
Martin & Lori Palombo $154.49
Angela Dalrymple $550.00
Mike & Ann Ford $947.44
Tom Trossbach $135.85
James Leach $110.00
Wayne & Sandra Mallas $800.00
Alit & Victoria Goh $239.88
The United States Probation Office and the defendant urge the Court to cap the amount of restitution paid to individual victims.
The United States Probation Office urges the Court to limit restitution to $150.00 per victim, and the defendant urges a limit of $ 100.00 per victim.
They argue that these amounts represent a reasonable amount of money to repair harm caused by the Blaster worm and
any additional amounts spent by victims cannot be fairly attributed to the defendant's worm.
The government believes these limits on restitution should be rejected by the Court.
First, none of the victims knew at the time that they dealt with the damage from the Blaster worm that they would be recompensed for their expenses.
As a result, the government believes their Victim Impact Statements fairly describe the losses "directly and proximately" caused by the defendant's offense,
even though those losses range from relatively low computer consulting fees (e.g., $110.00)
to the cost of replacing a damaged machine (e.g., $947.44).
18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a). See also United States v Sapoznik, 161 F.3d 117 (7th Cir. 1998)
(a reasonable estimate of the value of the harm is sufficient where a precise amount cannot be determined).
Second, as the record demonstrates, the defendants who submitted Victim Impact Statements to the Court are a very limited subset of the
total number of victims who were affected by the
[Government's Memorandum -- Page 3 of 3]
defendant's conduct. Most victims were never specifically identified, and thus asked about their damages, because it was forensically
impossible identify victims affected only by the defendant's variant of the Blaster worm, as opposed to all the other variants.
As a result, the requested restitution in this case is extraordinarily small given the total amount of damage caused by the defendant's actions.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and in the Government's Sentencing Memorandum,
the government respectfully requests that the Court order restitution to individual victims of the defendant's variant of the Blaster worm
as set forth above.
DATED this 30th day of March, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN McKAY United States Attorney
/signed/
ANNETTE L. HAYS
Assistant United States Attorney
this document is at http://www.rbs2.com/parson4.html
31 March 2005
return to my essay, Examples of Malicious Computer Programs, Part 2
go to my homepage