5 ms·

In washington state, the state superior court ruled the police department was not liable for the impound fee paid by somebody who had their car impounded for 90

In washington state, the state superior court ruled the police department was not liable for the impound fee paid by somebody who had their car impounded for 90* days for driving on what the computer reported was a suspended license, because they are exempt from mistakes from trusting their own computer system. This was the second time the department had wrongfully impounded his car and they made no attempt to fix the mistake from the first time, this didn't impact the ruling. Its gonna get much worse before it get any better.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
It will get much worse I think. More and more companies are hiding behind algorithms and other computer systems while cutting support staff. If you are wronged you have nobody to talk to and they make no effort to correct the situation. the only recourse is a lawsuit which is way too expensive for most people. And even when they are caught the fines are usually only nominal. I think we are building up the ultimate faceless bureaucracies.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  If people implicitly trust the system (or at least don’t get blamed for it’s failures) it makes it much easier for hackers though.
- swiley 5y ago
  At that point you might as well just hook everything up to etherium; the judge is redundant.
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  You're certainly right that lots of very large companies go to every conceivable length to keep you from ever finding a human being, even for an online chat, forget a live phone conversation. Their "contact us" page is nothing but an FAQ. Is legislation or regulation the answer? That would be unfortunate. The government rarely makes things better, but to be honest, those accident investigation boards probably DO prevent management from sweeping things under the rug. Some kind of consumer ratings for Quality of Service will have to spring up. You can now find ratings of airlines for their on-time record and likelihood of losing your baggage. We need something similar for web companies.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    I rarely see such purely expressed faith in the Free Market Fairy: https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/ https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
    - AlbertCory 5y ago
      I guess you wouldn't on your half of the web.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        What makes you think half the web believes in the Free Market Fairy?
    - AlbertCory 5y ago
      Let me withdraw the snarky reply. But a serious question: What's your solution to the "bad service" problem? We can consider separately : (1) the failures that might kill someone, and (2) just lousy customer service. The analogy to airlines would be: (1) a crash that kills people (2) being late & losing your luggage
steve_g 5y ago
I would assume (taking the lazy way of not checking) that this is an issue of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. Qualified immunity is a judge-created doctrine that allows police and other government officials to avoid any consequences for clearly bad acts. Any intelligent 10-year old could see that it's unjust for a citizen to pay for the cop's mistake in this situation. Qualified immunity says, "if there is no specifically on-point existing legal ruling that states the behavior violates the constitution then the government official is not responsible. Everyone else is expected to use their brains and be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Government officials are not. This is not an issue of computer failures being treated differently than other high-consequence failures. This an issue of government failure getting a pass. Qualified immunity is a corrupt and depraved element of the US legal system.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  No. Qualified immunity protects individuals from liability from the state's mistakes. It's similar to how you are not liabile for hurting someone while you are doing your job properly, and why you can't sue a Comcast customer service rep for stealing your money in a billing error. Sovereign immunity (the principle that the state rules over all so no one can force the state to do anything) protects the state from liability from its own mistakes. You can only sue the state if the state decides to allow it.
zepto 5y ago
That doesn’t seem unreasonable in terms of the police department not being liable. What are they supposed to do? Maintain a parallel system so they can check everything the the computer produces? It seems like the vendor of the faulty system should be liable.
- ectopod 5y ago
  No. It's the police department computer. They should be liable for the harm caused by it. Maybe the police can recover damages from the software vendor, but that should be separate.
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
    ^
  - zepto 5y ago
    > but that should be separate. Why?
    - MrStonedOne 5y ago
      Because the citizen has no visibility nor control into the decisions related to what software vendor to use, what processes are for dealing with errors and issues, what terms are negotiated for licensed source access (to the police) vs managed closed source where all changes, issues, and fixes have to go thru long form scoping processes with the vendor delaying fixes, or what policies are for using and trusting these results, what polices there are for reporting and acting on inaccuracies, as well as informing the entire department/state about the inaccuracies. The police department does, so they should be liable for those decisions. Like, the moment there was a case of somebody being incorrectly listed as having a suspended license, the entire department should have been informed to not trust the results until the underlying issue was found and fixed.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > The police department does, so they should be liable for those decisions. Does it? Perhaps if they are using a bespoke solution, but they could just as easily be using a standard system procured at the county or state level. > the entire department should have been informed to not trust the results until the underlying issue was found and fixed. This doesn’t seem like a real world solution. Without knowing the frequency and nature of the problem this could be a massive overreaction.

spaetzleesser 5y ago

It will get much worse I think. More and more companies are hiding behind algorithms and other computer systems while cutting support staff. If you are wronged you have nobody to talk to and they make no effort to correct the situation. the only recourse is a lawsuit which is way too expensive for most people. And even when they are caught the fines are usually only nominal. I think we are building up the ultimate faceless bureaucracies.

Aeolun 5y ago
If people implicitly trust the system (or at least don’t get blamed for it’s failures) it makes it much easier for hackers though.
swiley 5y ago
At that point you might as well just hook everything up to etherium; the judge is redundant.
AlbertCory 5y ago
You're certainly right that lots of very large companies go to every conceivable length to keep you from ever finding a human being, even for an online chat, forget a live phone conversation. Their "contact us" page is nothing but an FAQ. Is legislation or regulation the answer? That would be unfortunate. The government rarely makes things better, but to be honest, those accident investigation boards probably DO prevent management from sweeping things under the rug. Some kind of consumer ratings for Quality of Service will have to spring up. You can now find ratings of airlines for their on-time record and likelihood of losing your baggage. We need something similar for web companies.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  I rarely see such purely expressed faith in the Free Market Fairy: https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/ https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    I guess you wouldn't on your half of the web.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      What makes you think half the web believes in the Free Market Fairy?
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    Let me withdraw the snarky reply. But a serious question: What's your solution to the "bad service" problem? We can consider separately : (1) the failures that might kill someone, and (2) just lousy customer service. The analogy to airlines would be: (1) a crash that kills people (2) being late & losing your luggage

steve_g 5y ago

I would assume (taking the lazy way of not checking) that this is an issue of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. Qualified immunity is a judge-created doctrine that allows police and other government officials to avoid any consequences for clearly bad acts. Any intelligent 10-year old could see that it's unjust for a citizen to pay for the cop's mistake in this situation. Qualified immunity says, "if there is no specifically on-point existing legal ruling that states the behavior violates the constitution then the government official is not responsible. Everyone else is expected to use their brains and be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Government officials are not. This is not an issue of computer failures being treated differently than other high-consequence failures. This an issue of government failure getting a pass. Qualified immunity is a corrupt and depraved element of the US legal system.

alisonkisk 5y ago
No. Qualified immunity protects individuals from liability from the state's mistakes. It's similar to how you are not liabile for hurting someone while you are doing your job properly, and why you can't sue a Comcast customer service rep for stealing your money in a billing error. Sovereign immunity (the principle that the state rules over all so no one can force the state to do anything) protects the state from liability from its own mistakes. You can only sue the state if the state decides to allow it.

zepto 5y ago

That doesn’t seem unreasonable in terms of the police department not being liable. What are they supposed to do? Maintain a parallel system so they can check everything the the computer produces? It seems like the vendor of the faulty system should be liable.

ectopod 5y ago
No. It's the police department computer. They should be liable for the harm caused by it. Maybe the police can recover damages from the software vendor, but that should be separate.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  ^
- zepto 5y ago
  > but that should be separate. Why?
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
    Because the citizen has no visibility nor control into the decisions related to what software vendor to use, what processes are for dealing with errors and issues, what terms are negotiated for licensed source access (to the police) vs managed closed source where all changes, issues, and fixes have to go thru long form scoping processes with the vendor delaying fixes, or what policies are for using and trusting these results, what polices there are for reporting and acting on inaccuracies, as well as informing the entire department/state about the inaccuracies. The police department does, so they should be liable for those decisions. Like, the moment there was a case of somebody being incorrectly listed as having a suspended license, the entire department should have been informed to not trust the results until the underlying issue was found and fixed.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > The police department does, so they should be liable for those decisions. Does it? Perhaps if they are using a bespoke solution, but they could just as easily be using a standard system procured at the county or state level. > the entire department should have been informed to not trust the results until the underlying issue was found and fixed. This doesn’t seem like a real world solution. Without knowing the frequency and nature of the problem this could be a massive overreaction.