4 ms·
I'm very sure this system was certified in a multitude of ways. No certification process would prevent this. The real issue here was that Post Office refused t
by BillinghamJ 5y ago
I'm very sure this system was certified in a multitude of ways. No certification process would prevent this.
The real issue here was that Post Office refused to recognise that, although computers themselves are mostly infallible, computer programs are never infallible. They conducted their activities and took actions based on assuming the reporting was flawless.
Then the really serious problem is that in cases where the fallibility became more visible, they consistently and systematically covered it up and pressed forward with their incredibly aggressive enforcement work anyway, knowing how much damage it was doing.
This is unquestionably an issue of abuse of power and position.
- citrin_ru 5y ago> although computers themselves are mostly infallible What do you mean? Hardware is fallible too, just less often than software. This may cause problem on its own e. g. bit flips in non-ECC memory, HDD which lie (reply to flush cache before data is actually written) or HW can trigger software errors, e. g. HW can crash at random moment and SW can be not designed to handle this properly.
- BillinghamJ 5y agoThat is why I said "mostly", at least in comparison to programs or humans. Obviously yes there are very occasional problems as you've described.