3 ms·

If an accused person has the right to see the source code that produced evidence against them, is it a violation of their rights for the source code to be obfus

If an accused person has the right to see the source code that produced evidence against them, is it a violation of their rights for the source code to be obfuscated, or even just so spaghettified that not even an expert can understand it? I kinda think that should be a violation. But deciding whether a particular piece of code is so bad is so subjective that I'm not sure on how you'd make a legal standard out of it. Maybe start with "the linter found a ratio of warnings to lines > X%" or some such. Having a legal standard of code coherence/incoherence might help filter pull requests. "This PR cannot be merged to this project because it is configured to reject legally incoherent code." As code becomes more complex it may become more meaningful to have access to the test suite, and to challenge the evidence if the tests are inadequate to demonstrate the correct code behavior.

londons_explore 6y ago
You don't need a legal standard. You just need to put doubt into the minds of a jury. You can get an expert to stand up and say "I'm an expert in computers, and I couldn't understand how this DNA test works. I think it's likely there are mistakes in it that neither I nor the people that made it have discovered".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 6y ago
  “This system is an absolute mess that is impossible audit and so there is no way that the company using could find bugs in it either.”
Jakobeha 6y ago
In the case where code is used to convict or acquit someone, I think it should be a well-tested and established program: generally something with the software quality of Linux, or in this case, whatever DNA testing kit is being used by scientists in top-ranking universities. We could also use formal verification based on well-established axioms. For example, maybe we could "prove" that the DNA kit reports accurate results as long as the samples it's given are processed correctly.
WaitWaitWha 6y ago
During discovery, the opposing lawyer can raise an alarm to the court of such obfuscation. There have been many cases where such behavior cost cases going against the party.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
There was a court case against Toyota, where one of their cars would randomly accelerate and cause crashes. The software audit said the code was unreadable and nothing could be proven. They settled. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/business/toyota-agrees-to-settlement-in-fatal-acceleration-crash.html#:~:text=Toyota%20agreed%20on%20Friday%20to,trials%20over%20the%20acceleration%20issue https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/business/toyota-agrees-to....

londons_explore 6y ago

You don't need a legal standard. You just need to put doubt into the minds of a jury. You can get an expert to stand up and say "I'm an expert in computers, and I couldn't understand how this DNA test works. I think it's likely there are mistakes in it that neither I nor the people that made it have discovered".

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 6y ago
“This system is an absolute mess that is impossible audit and so there is no way that the company using could find bugs in it either.”

Jakobeha 6y ago

In the case where code is used to convict or acquit someone, I think it should be a well-tested and established program: generally something with the software quality of Linux, or in this case, whatever DNA testing kit is being used by scientists in top-ranking universities. We could also use formal verification based on well-established axioms. For example, maybe we could "prove" that the DNA kit reports accurate results as long as the samples it's given are processed correctly.

WaitWaitWha 6y ago

During discovery, the opposing lawyer can raise an alarm to the court of such obfuscation. There have been many cases where such behavior cost cases going against the party.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

There was a court case against Toyota, where one of their cars would randomly accelerate and cause crashes. The software audit said the code was unreadable and nothing could be proven. They settled. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/business/toyota-agrees-to-settlement-in-fatal-acceleration-crash.html#:~:text=Toyota%20agreed%20on%20Friday%20to,trials%20over%20the%20acceleration%20issue https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/business/toyota-agrees-to....