> It's not like you review all scientific evidence and re-do the experiments that lead up to the discovery of <insert some evidence method> in the first place.

> It's not like you review all scientific evidence and re-do the experiments that lead up to the discovery of <insert some evidence method> in the first place. Actually, it is. That's how science works and that's how convictions often get overturned. > Validating all that would also take years Are you suggesting that unvalidated data is being used to prosecute crimes? > and much of it can be established as generally accepted by all parties. The point here is that it isn't established as generally accepted by all parties. > Similarly, there will be some trust involved with this source code as well. "Trust but verify" > If you don't think software of 180k lines can be used in court under such circumstances because it would take too long to review, we should throw out pretty much all software anywhere in the judicial system. I firmly believe that if the source code isn't available to review by all parties, including the public, then it shouldn't be used in a criminal court.