4 ms·

EDIT. Here's a useful radio programme that goes through what happened: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jf7j https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jf7j Bob

by DanBC 6y ago

EDIT. Here's a useful radio programme that goes through what happened: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jf7j https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jf7j Bob works as a postmaster running a small local post office. Bob must use software provided to him by The Post Office. That software is faulty. One of the errors is that it reports more money present in Bob's office than there actually is. Bob contacts his superiors who tell him that no-one else is having a problem (this is a lie, other people are having the same problem and they know this) and that the software is correct. They give Bob a choice: supply the missing funds or deal with the police. Bob is acting in good faith and he assumes this is a simple mistake that'll get sorted out, so he supplies the missing money from his own funds, and keeps telling his superiors to fix it. Eventually, Bob runs out of money (or, maybe, he says "get the police involved".) So, the police arrest Bob (because we have a low threshold for arrest over here) and interview Bob under caution. Police are told by Post Office that the software is reliable, and that Bob is lying. Police aggressively question Bob. It goes to court. Bob is convicted. Because this is what happened to hundreds of people. What's Bob supposed to do? Ask the Post Office to supply the source code so he can have a look for bugs?

Meph504 6y ago
"(this is a lie, other people are having the same problem and they know this)" So this is fraud, and makes the validate nature of a program immaterial. If they are willing to lie about this, they can produce false logs that show their system is working. But if Bob, kept records, of his transaction, and could show an irregularity between the his records and theirs this could be used as evidence of a faulty system an warrant further investigation. But you listed another issue that the law wouldn't help, the police don't believe Bob, they don't investigate, The courts don't believe bob. I don't see how you think this different finding would change that. In almost any case, if the cops don't believe you, and the court doesn't believe you, you are going to get screwed.
- voxic11 6y ago
  They don't even need to produce false records/logs if the courts believe that any computer system is working as intended without evidence that it isn't then they don't need to produce any records as the court will already accept their computers result as correct.
  - Meph504 6y ago
    previously they would have, which was the point I was going after, its moot. additionally, if bob kept a personal leisure that didn't not reconcile with their system, or if bob reached out to other branches and had others make the same complaint, both of those could be used to cause the company to defend their system. Again, if bob is believed by the courts.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  If Bob was a fraudster, any records kept by Bob would also be fraudulets, so he can't use them as evidence. He would have to produce material proof of a kind he could not easilly forge - maybe hours of CCTV footage poiting at the till?
  - Kalium 6y ago
    > If Bob was a fraudster, any records kept by Bob would also be fraudulets, so he can't use them as evidence. Would that really be true? In a trial, I would expect part of the proceedings to include arguing to the jury that these records or those records are more reliable. Just because Bob is accused of fraud shouldn't automatically make his records inadmissable...
    - Meph504 6y ago
      Well they could likely be admitted, depending on the context that they were admitted, this is where shit gets complex in legal matters, if there is a legal expert they maybe able to field this better
  - Meph504 6y ago
    I probably shouldn't have said the word evidence, but I didn't mean as evidence as a part of his defense, but to justify further investigation.
GrantZvolsky 6y ago
I don't see the evidence against Bob. If I were Bob, my defence would be along the lines of 'The software says there was $x in the office. Then surely all transactions must add up to this number. Your allegations are baseless without the transaction data.'. Surely someone made this argument. Was the response 'This aggregate value proves you wrong. We may not know where it came from, but it is all the evidence we need.'?
- curryst 6y ago
  > I don't see the evidence against Bob. If I were Bob, my defence would be along the lines of 'The software says there was $x in the office. Then surely all transactions must add up to this number. Your allegations are baseless without the transaction data.'. Presumably, they have the transaction data from the software, and the transaction data is saying he's lying. Software bugs are perfectly capable of creating bad transactions (i.e. by converting currencies incorrectly, double-submitting transactions, failing to actual cancel orders if the user cancels, etc). In those cases, the presumption is that the software is working correctly. Those transactions are deemed legitimate because the software is presumed to be working correctly. That is the evidence against Bob; an "infallible" transaction registry that says he's embezzling. If you are Bob, you have to prove that those transactions aren't legitimate, and never actually occurred. Or that they did occur, but the actual amount transacted was less than what the computer recorded. In essence, Bob is fucked, because he has to prove that something didn't happen. Probably something that he wasn't even there for (since presumably other employees would have handled the actual transaction).
  - GrantZvolsky 6y ago
    > Presumably, they have the transaction data from the software, and the transaction data is saying he's lying. No, the error seems to be just in the aggregates: > We went through the system together, and found nothing. The other weird thing is that her stock unit basically almost never had that amount of cash in it - for it to be that short, there had to be a random high value transaction put through by mistake. We searched, and found nothing. - https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/05/the-post-office-claim-i-owe-them-35000.html https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/05/the-post-office-clai...

by DanBC 6y ago

Meph504 6y ago

"(this is a lie, other people are having the same problem and they know this)" So this is fraud, and makes the validate nature of a program immaterial. If they are willing to lie about this, they can produce false logs that show their system is working. But if Bob, kept records, of his transaction, and could show an irregularity between the his records and theirs this could be used as evidence of a faulty system an warrant further investigation. But you listed another issue that the law wouldn't help, the police don't believe Bob, they don't investigate, The courts don't believe bob. I don't see how you think this different finding would change that. In almost any case, if the cops don't believe you, and the court doesn't believe you, you are going to get screwed.

voxic11 6y ago
They don't even need to produce false records/logs if the courts believe that any computer system is working as intended without evidence that it isn't then they don't need to produce any records as the court will already accept their computers result as correct.
- Meph504 6y ago
  previously they would have, which was the point I was going after, its moot. additionally, if bob kept a personal leisure that didn't not reconcile with their system, or if bob reached out to other branches and had others make the same complaint, both of those could be used to cause the company to defend their system. Again, if bob is believed by the courts.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
If Bob was a fraudster, any records kept by Bob would also be fraudulets, so he can't use them as evidence. He would have to produce material proof of a kind he could not easilly forge - maybe hours of CCTV footage poiting at the till?
- Kalium 6y ago
  > If Bob was a fraudster, any records kept by Bob would also be fraudulets, so he can't use them as evidence. Would that really be true? In a trial, I would expect part of the proceedings to include arguing to the jury that these records or those records are more reliable. Just because Bob is accused of fraud shouldn't automatically make his records inadmissable...
  - Meph504 6y ago
    Well they could likely be admitted, depending on the context that they were admitted, this is where shit gets complex in legal matters, if there is a legal expert they maybe able to field this better
- Meph504 6y ago
  I probably shouldn't have said the word evidence, but I didn't mean as evidence as a part of his defense, but to justify further investigation.

GrantZvolsky 6y ago

I don't see the evidence against Bob. If I were Bob, my defence would be along the lines of 'The software says there was $x in the office. Then surely all transactions must add up to this number. Your allegations are baseless without the transaction data.'. Surely someone made this argument. Was the response 'This aggregate value proves you wrong. We may not know where it came from, but it is all the evidence we need.'?

curryst 6y ago
> I don't see the evidence against Bob. If I were Bob, my defence would be along the lines of 'The software says there was $x in the office. Then surely all transactions must add up to this number. Your allegations are baseless without the transaction data.'. Presumably, they have the transaction data from the software, and the transaction data is saying he's lying. Software bugs are perfectly capable of creating bad transactions (i.e. by converting currencies incorrectly, double-submitting transactions, failing to actual cancel orders if the user cancels, etc). In those cases, the presumption is that the software is working correctly. Those transactions are deemed legitimate because the software is presumed to be working correctly. That is the evidence against Bob; an "infallible" transaction registry that says he's embezzling. If you are Bob, you have to prove that those transactions aren't legitimate, and never actually occurred. Or that they did occur, but the actual amount transacted was less than what the computer recorded. In essence, Bob is fucked, because he has to prove that something didn't happen. Probably something that he wasn't even there for (since presumably other employees would have handled the actual transaction).
- GrantZvolsky 6y ago
  > Presumably, they have the transaction data from the software, and the transaction data is saying he's lying. No, the error seems to be just in the aggregates: > We went through the system together, and found nothing. The other weird thing is that her stock unit basically almost never had that amount of cash in it - for it to be that short, there had to be a random high value transaction put through by mistake. We searched, and found nothing. - https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/05/the-post-office-claim-i-owe-them-35000.html https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/05/the-post-office-clai...