3 ms·

I agree with nearly everything in this artictle but the following question stumped me: when exactly would a software disaster investigation board be employed?

I agree with nearly everything in this artictle but the following question stumped me: when exactly would a software disaster investigation board be employed? Plane goes down, train goes off rails or passes signal at danger, easy. But at what exact what point did the UK postmaster system "fail" enough for an investigation?

andersource 5y ago
I would say at latest when people convicted because of it had their names cleared - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357
monkeydreams 5y ago
> But at what exact what point did the UK postmaster system "fail" enough for an investigation? The moment it came to light that postmasters were being improperly convicted? The moment it came to light that some improperly convicted postmasters committed suicide?
duckhelmet 5y ago
> at what exact what point did the UK postmaster system "fail" enough for an investigation? There never was in independent investigation of the IT system. "Justice Lost In The Post" https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-in-the-post https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i...
chrischapman 5y ago
This is all pretty new in the world. It took many years for aircraft investigations to get real professional at it. How about we start with a simple algorithm like this: 1. Check if software is involved in the incident. 2. If it is, carry out an internal review to evaluate the possibility that the software may be a cause of the incident. 3. If it is, hand over to an independent review board. 4. Involve lawyers if and only if, the independent review board recommends it. That was an off-the-cuff attempt at a suggestion. There is probably a much better way. Feel free to suggest alternatives. I have no objection to lawyers getting involved. I just object to them suppressing the facts to protect their clients and preventing an independent investigation. It's impossible to cover up that an aircraft has crashed. Lawyers involved in an aircraft accident on behalf of the manufacturer (or operator) are basically doing 'damage limitation'. Lawyers involved in a software incident on behalf of the manufacturer (or operator) are basically doing 'evidence suppression'. They should stick to 'damage limitation'.

andersource 5y ago

I would say at latest when people convicted because of it had their names cleared - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357

monkeydreams 5y ago

> But at what exact what point did the UK postmaster system "fail" enough for an investigation? The moment it came to light that postmasters were being improperly convicted? The moment it came to light that some improperly convicted postmasters committed suicide?

duckhelmet 5y ago

> at what exact what point did the UK postmaster system "fail" enough for an investigation? There never was in independent investigation of the IT system. "Justice Lost In The Post" https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-in-the-post https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i...

chrischapman 5y ago

This is all pretty new in the world. It took many years for aircraft investigations to get real professional at it. How about we start with a simple algorithm like this: 1. Check if software is involved in the incident. 2. If it is, carry out an internal review to evaluate the possibility that the software may be a cause of the incident. 3. If it is, hand over to an independent review board. 4. Involve lawyers if and only if, the independent review board recommends it. That was an off-the-cuff attempt at a suggestion. There is probably a much better way. Feel free to suggest alternatives. I have no objection to lawyers getting involved. I just object to them suppressing the facts to protect their clients and preventing an independent investigation. It's impossible to cover up that an aircraft has crashed. Lawyers involved in an aircraft accident on behalf of the manufacturer (or operator) are basically doing 'damage limitation'. Lawyers involved in a software incident on behalf of the manufacturer (or operator) are basically doing 'evidence suppression'. They should stick to 'damage limitation'.