6 ms·

8 years is a long time. What he then wanted to code review Matlab, and then the compiler that Matlab used, then do some silicon verification... Six to nine mo

8 years is a long time. What he then wanted to code review Matlab, and then the compiler that Matlab used, then do some silicon verification... Six to nine months seems like enough to do a very good code review with some testing. There's a good chance that 75% of that Matlab code doesn't execute for his test.

edgyquant 6y ago
This is this persons life we’re talking about. No amount of time is too much and it isn’t hurting anyone to let him do a code review.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  No. You give a reasonable amount of time. What if he asked for 100 years?
  - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
    We should flip the responsibility. How does the company providing the software prove it is not flawed.
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    As long as he’s actually reading the code, and still in jail unable to hurt anyone, let him have it. He’ll likely pass before that time is reached and if he’s just wasting time he’ll get bored having to spend hours a day looking at code that he doesn’t care to look at. I get what you’re saying but my point is him wasting time reading code isn’t hurting anyone and is a better use of an inmates time than sitting around.
    - kenjackson 6y ago
      If he’s in jail doing it then that’s fine.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        For practical purposes its not in the interest of justice to punish people before we have found them guilty as a matter of law and justice. If it really requires 8 years of work to prove whether the tools they are using work or not then they haven't independently validated their work in the first place ergo we have no reason to suppose it works. We should either pay for multiple people to work on it so we can have the answer in less than 8 years or we shouldn't use it at all.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    The person's guilt must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If you are accusing him there is a range of possible proof. If all you have is based on an unreadable codebase, that takes 100 years to read, that's your (the prosecution's) fuckup. As a jury I would not convict. I don't want prosecutors sleeping on the job, bringing in fraudsters laymen and psychics to accuse people, etc. The prosecutor should use a company that can present independent proof that their system actually works.
    - kenjackson 6y ago
      So what if I say i need to review camera footage of me doing a crime and it will take me 100 years to validate it? You need to establish reasonable timelines for this or any guilty person will claim any technology used will take 100 years to verify. There is no reason you can’t analyze a DNA analysis codebase in 6 months. Unless you also need to verify the science.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        I am not clear what you are arguing - it there a real problem where people invent fantastical amount of time to review simple evidence? The claim about the amount of time was not made by the defendant, it was from the company that produced the code.
        kenjackson 6y ago
        Thanks for the clarification -- I actually misread it and thought the defendant was making the claim. With it being the company, then I agree that the company has an obligation to make review simple enough that it can be done in a reasonable amount of time (from someone knowledgeable in the field -- I still don't think we need to allow someone 10 years to understand statistics and progreamming before even beginning the code review) or recuse the tool from use in a trial.
  - willis936 6y ago
    The burden of proof does not suddenly fall on the defendant just because one for-profit conviction company can’t back up their product.
    - kenjackson 6y ago
      Who said they can’t back it up? The defendant claimed he needed to review it. The company presumably has done its own validation.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        There is no reason to presume they did their own validation correctly absent proof of same.
        ALittleLight 6y ago
        Hopefully they have to have demonstrated some level of quality to be used as legal evidence in convicting someone. Although, I would hope "code analysis" is an infinitesimal part of the validation with the majority being real world end to end tests. (e.g. we can take 10,000 samples, divide them in two, mix them, then use our tool to pair up the samples with 100% accuracy).
        kenjackson 6y ago
        I think this is the crux of the problem. If the defendant gets to decide when validation is sufficient then should they ever say it is sufficient?
        willis936 6y ago
        When the jury agrees the evidence is there beyond a reasonable doubt. No one should trust any black box when it comes to criminal prosecution.
        kenjackson 6y ago
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Such code should have tests, analysis, and documentation that ought to go a long way towards proving it correct in the time required to transmit data. If they can't produce THAT then they shouldn't use it in a court of law at all.

edgyquant 6y ago

This is this persons life we’re talking about. No amount of time is too much and it isn’t hurting anyone to let him do a code review.

kenjackson 6y ago
No. You give a reasonable amount of time. What if he asked for 100 years?
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  We should flip the responsibility. How does the company providing the software prove it is not flawed.
- edgyquant 6y ago
  As long as he’s actually reading the code, and still in jail unable to hurt anyone, let him have it. He’ll likely pass before that time is reached and if he’s just wasting time he’ll get bored having to spend hours a day looking at code that he doesn’t care to look at. I get what you’re saying but my point is him wasting time reading code isn’t hurting anyone and is a better use of an inmates time than sitting around.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    If he’s in jail doing it then that’s fine.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      For practical purposes its not in the interest of justice to punish people before we have found them guilty as a matter of law and justice. If it really requires 8 years of work to prove whether the tools they are using work or not then they haven't independently validated their work in the first place ergo we have no reason to suppose it works. We should either pay for multiple people to work on it so we can have the answer in less than 8 years or we shouldn't use it at all.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  The person's guilt must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If you are accusing him there is a range of possible proof. If all you have is based on an unreadable codebase, that takes 100 years to read, that's your (the prosecution's) fuckup. As a jury I would not convict. I don't want prosecutors sleeping on the job, bringing in fraudsters laymen and psychics to accuse people, etc. The prosecutor should use a company that can present independent proof that their system actually works.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    So what if I say i need to review camera footage of me doing a crime and it will take me 100 years to validate it? You need to establish reasonable timelines for this or any guilty person will claim any technology used will take 100 years to verify. There is no reason you can’t analyze a DNA analysis codebase in 6 months. Unless you also need to verify the science.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      I am not clear what you are arguing - it there a real problem where people invent fantastical amount of time to review simple evidence? The claim about the amount of time was not made by the defendant, it was from the company that produced the code.
      - kenjackson 6y ago
        Thanks for the clarification -- I actually misread it and thought the defendant was making the claim. With it being the company, then I agree that the company has an obligation to make review simple enough that it can be done in a reasonable amount of time (from someone knowledgeable in the field -- I still don't think we need to allow someone 10 years to understand statistics and progreamming before even beginning the code review) or recuse the tool from use in a trial.
- willis936 6y ago
  The burden of proof does not suddenly fall on the defendant just because one for-profit conviction company can’t back up their product.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    Who said they can’t back it up? The defendant claimed he needed to review it. The company presumably has done its own validation.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      There is no reason to presume they did their own validation correctly absent proof of same.
      - ALittleLight 6y ago
        Hopefully they have to have demonstrated some level of quality to be used as legal evidence in convicting someone. Although, I would hope "code analysis" is an infinitesimal part of the validation with the majority being real world end to end tests. (e.g. we can take 10,000 samples, divide them in two, mix them, then use our tool to pair up the samples with 100% accuracy).
      - kenjackson 6y ago
        I think this is the crux of the problem. If the defendant gets to decide when validation is sufficient then should they ever say it is sufficient?
        willis936 6y ago
        When the jury agrees the evidence is there beyond a reasonable doubt. No one should trust any black box when it comes to criminal prosecution.
        kenjackson 6y ago
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Such code should have tests, analysis, and documentation that ought to go a long way towards proving it correct in the time required to transmit data. If they can't produce THAT then they shouldn't use it in a court of law at all.