3 ms·

People sent postal workers to jail. A judicial system convicted and jailed them. The bad software was just one part of the input to that decision. As the BBC a

People sent postal workers to jail. A judicial system convicted and jailed them. The bad software was just one part of the input to that decision. As the BBC article which should have been linked quotes their attorney as saying, the post office is "an organisation that not only turned a blind eye to the failings in its hugely expensive IT system, but positively promoted a culture of cover-up and subterfuge in the pursuit of reputation and profit"

mickeypi 6y ago
Yes, people also built the buggy software. But the role of software here can’t be overlooked. Because people trust software to run the modern world, there is a high level of trust that this software is working properly. The article says that this trust was misplaced in this case and it caused serious harm. It doesn’t just blame the existence of software, but questions the way in which it is built, used, and the ways in which society places trust in it.
- akira2501 6y ago
  > But the role of software here can’t be overlooked. Whilst giving testimony in one case that there couldn't have been software errors, one of the Post Office executives was participating in internal communications regarding clear cut cases of software errors. Yes, the software is bad, but these executives actively engaged in a cover up, in court. They should be prosecuted.
rileymat2 6y ago
> The bad software was just one part of the input to that decision. To play devil's advocate was there evidence of malfeasance besides the software? If not, it is a bit disingenuous to say that the software did not send them to jail. If it was a witness who was mistaken and that was the only evidence, in standard english, we would say the witness sent them to jail.
- mitchdoogle 6y ago
  Saying it was the software absolves others of responsibility. If anyone knew it was buggy and went forth prosecuting these individuals anyway, they themselves should be sent to jail for criminal negligence.
- NelsonMinar 6y ago
  Yes. I'm not going to summarize it for you. Read the articles that are the original reporting. They contain many details of the post office knowing they had problems and covering them up, allowing folks to be prosecuted rather than to own up to IT problems. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52905378 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52905378 Also please don't post leading comments as being "devil's advocate". It's the laziest form of rhetoric, "just asking questions".
  - tome 6y ago
    I think you've taken rileymat2's comment the opposite way than was intended.
- IshKebab 6y ago
  If you knew that witness was unreliable and you still prosecuted based on that witness, and covered up evidence you had of their unreliability...
dang 6y ago
We've changed the URL now. The submitted URL (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399721/uk-post-office-software-bug-criminal-convictions-overturned https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399721/uk-post-office-s...) had the bad bad software title.

mickeypi 6y ago

Yes, people also built the buggy software. But the role of software here can’t be overlooked. Because people trust software to run the modern world, there is a high level of trust that this software is working properly. The article says that this trust was misplaced in this case and it caused serious harm. It doesn’t just blame the existence of software, but questions the way in which it is built, used, and the ways in which society places trust in it.

akira2501 6y ago
> But the role of software here can’t be overlooked. Whilst giving testimony in one case that there couldn't have been software errors, one of the Post Office executives was participating in internal communications regarding clear cut cases of software errors. Yes, the software is bad, but these executives actively engaged in a cover up, in court. They should be prosecuted.

rileymat2 6y ago

> The bad software was just one part of the input to that decision. To play devil's advocate was there evidence of malfeasance besides the software? If not, it is a bit disingenuous to say that the software did not send them to jail. If it was a witness who was mistaken and that was the only evidence, in standard english, we would say the witness sent them to jail.

mitchdoogle 6y ago
Saying it was the software absolves others of responsibility. If anyone knew it was buggy and went forth prosecuting these individuals anyway, they themselves should be sent to jail for criminal negligence.
NelsonMinar 6y ago
Yes. I'm not going to summarize it for you. Read the articles that are the original reporting. They contain many details of the post office knowing they had problems and covering them up, allowing folks to be prosecuted rather than to own up to IT problems. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52905378 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52905378 Also please don't post leading comments as being "devil's advocate". It's the laziest form of rhetoric, "just asking questions".
- tome 6y ago
  I think you've taken rileymat2's comment the opposite way than was intended.
IshKebab 6y ago
If you knew that witness was unreliable and you still prosecuted based on that witness, and covered up evidence you had of their unreliability...

dang 6y ago

We've changed the URL now. The submitted URL (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399721/uk-post-office-software-bug-criminal-convictions-overturned https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399721/uk-post-office-s...) had the bad bad software title.