4 ms·

It's known what went wrong, computerphile has a video with some details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJm9ZYqL10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJm9ZYqL10

by ldarby 5y ago

It's known what went wrong, computerphile has a video with some details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJm9ZYqL10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJm9ZYqL10 but it doesn't address any of the judicial and cultural fails, that's what needs to be fixed. Software bugs are a fact of life, people know this, except the judges in this case apparently.

HarryHirsch 5y ago
Bugs are a fact of life because of sloppy practices. The experience from SQLite is instructive, after a testsuite had been written, matters improved immensely. Why was the testsuite written? Because it was in the list of requirements from the client, aerospace standards demand that every possible branch is covered by a test. We choose to write bad software.
II2II 5y ago
One could argue that faults in the engineering and construction are also a fact of life, yet that doesn't mean we excuse them and it doesn't mean that assume that a failure is due to those faults. Investigations are performed in order to ascertain the truth. I think the authors comparison to the historical development of trains is appropriate. Investigating IT failures wasn't as important 50 years ago because IT infrastructure was not as critical. Investigating IT failures today is critical because the functioning of society depends upon it.
- ldarby 5y ago
  I don't think you (or the sibling comment) got my point. No where am I "excusing" bugs. Civil engineering bugs are indeed a fact of life too, just check the god damn news. What I'm saying, is that I think where PHK says "nobody sat down and documented precisely what went wrong", I think he is just wrong. The guy in the Computerphile video, Steven Murdoch wrote this article: https://www.benthamsgaze.org/2021/07/15/what-went-wrong-with-horizon-learning-from-the-post-office-trial/ https://www.benthamsgaze.org/2021/07/15/what-went-wrong-with..., which has further details of the bugs, e.g. "There is a window of time between a user printing and cutting-off a report. If another user was to perform a transaction during that window, that transaction may not show on the report." which is from the long and very detailed judgment: https://www.benthamsgaze.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bates-and-Ors-v-the-Post-Office-Ltd-2019-EWHC-3408-QB.pdf https://www.benthamsgaze.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bate... The problem that needs investigating here is the miscarriage of justice, apparently the post office was aware of the bugs at the same time as prosecuting people for falling victim to the bugs, in order to save face about their IT decision.
  - inopinatus 5y ago
    A blog post and a judgement focused on the legal issues is nothing, not even close, not even in the same ballpark, as a thorough report from an investigatory board. What PHK is calling for is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in detail and depth. Moreover he specifically denounces any practice of treating technical inquiries as judicial processes. The incentives differ, making that a short path to bad outcomes as people run for cover. Dispassionately recorded findings that inform the whole profession may be useful, and restorative justice has already occurred; punitive justice will be best served as a separate and ultimate proceeding.
    - ldarby 5y ago
      Seriously, did you read a different article from https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3475967 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3475967 ? I have re-read it several times but am not seeing what you apparently are.
      - chrischapman 5y ago
        You're both right - inopinatus and ldarby. It was clearly a miscarriage of justice - hence the lawyers and court case and resignation of the Post Office CEO. But it absolutely needed to be investigated by a dedicated, professional Software Incident Investigation Board. The miscarriage of justice is the truly awful, shameful part of this incident and it all came about because of the 'less than honest' stance of the post office leadership. To be fair to them, they were probably advised to act in this manner by their lawyers. The difference between an aircraft/train/boat/car/oil rig accident and a software incident is that we immediately know that an aircraft/train/boat/car/oil rig accident has happened. Professional investigators are usually on the scene long before the lawyers have had their first cup of coffee. With a software incident, lawyers have wrapped their fingers around everything long before we even know that something has happened. For the incident investigators to do their job properly, it would probably be best to keep all lawyers out of the picture until the investigation is complete. But the chances of that happening are slim. I also agree with PHK about the expense issue. There are so many examples of huge expense to discover the cause of an aircraft accident. Just think of MH370 or AF447 (military submarines were used to try to find both wrecks). Also oil rigs. How about Deep Water Horizon? Huge amounts of money was spent to figure out exactly what happened. Similar sorts of money should be made available to discover the causes of software incidents. It's far too easy for companies to hide a software incident and then hide behind lawyers while blaming others. Bugs should be reviewed and dealt with by a profession independent investigation board, not by lawyers.

by ldarby 5y ago

HarryHirsch 5y ago

Bugs are a fact of life because of sloppy practices. The experience from SQLite is instructive, after a testsuite had been written, matters improved immensely. Why was the testsuite written? Because it was in the list of requirements from the client, aerospace standards demand that every possible branch is covered by a test. We choose to write bad software.

II2II 5y ago

One could argue that faults in the engineering and construction are also a fact of life, yet that doesn't mean we excuse them and it doesn't mean that assume that a failure is due to those faults. Investigations are performed in order to ascertain the truth. I think the authors comparison to the historical development of trains is appropriate. Investigating IT failures wasn't as important 50 years ago because IT infrastructure was not as critical. Investigating IT failures today is critical because the functioning of society depends upon it.

ldarby 5y ago
I don't think you (or the sibling comment) got my point. No where am I "excusing" bugs. Civil engineering bugs are indeed a fact of life too, just check the god damn news. What I'm saying, is that I think where PHK says "nobody sat down and documented precisely what went wrong", I think he is just wrong. The guy in the Computerphile video, Steven Murdoch wrote this article: https://www.benthamsgaze.org/2021/07/15/what-went-wrong-with-horizon-learning-from-the-post-office-trial/ https://www.benthamsgaze.org/2021/07/15/what-went-wrong-with..., which has further details of the bugs, e.g. "There is a window of time between a user printing and cutting-off a report. If another user was to perform a transaction during that window, that transaction may not show on the report." which is from the long and very detailed judgment: https://www.benthamsgaze.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bates-and-Ors-v-the-Post-Office-Ltd-2019-EWHC-3408-QB.pdf https://www.benthamsgaze.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bate... The problem that needs investigating here is the miscarriage of justice, apparently the post office was aware of the bugs at the same time as prosecuting people for falling victim to the bugs, in order to save face about their IT decision.
- inopinatus 5y ago
  A blog post and a judgement focused on the legal issues is nothing, not even close, not even in the same ballpark, as a thorough report from an investigatory board. What PHK is calling for is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in detail and depth. Moreover he specifically denounces any practice of treating technical inquiries as judicial processes. The incentives differ, making that a short path to bad outcomes as people run for cover. Dispassionately recorded findings that inform the whole profession may be useful, and restorative justice has already occurred; punitive justice will be best served as a separate and ultimate proceeding.
  - ldarby 5y ago
    Seriously, did you read a different article from https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3475967 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3475967 ? I have re-read it several times but am not seeing what you apparently are.
    - chrischapman 5y ago
      You're both right - inopinatus and ldarby. It was clearly a miscarriage of justice - hence the lawyers and court case and resignation of the Post Office CEO. But it absolutely needed to be investigated by a dedicated, professional Software Incident Investigation Board. The miscarriage of justice is the truly awful, shameful part of this incident and it all came about because of the 'less than honest' stance of the post office leadership. To be fair to them, they were probably advised to act in this manner by their lawyers. The difference between an aircraft/train/boat/car/oil rig accident and a software incident is that we immediately know that an aircraft/train/boat/car/oil rig accident has happened. Professional investigators are usually on the scene long before the lawyers have had their first cup of coffee. With a software incident, lawyers have wrapped their fingers around everything long before we even know that something has happened. For the incident investigators to do their job properly, it would probably be best to keep all lawyers out of the picture until the investigation is complete. But the chances of that happening are slim. I also agree with PHK about the expense issue. There are so many examples of huge expense to discover the cause of an aircraft accident. Just think of MH370 or AF447 (military submarines were used to try to find both wrecks). Also oil rigs. How about Deep Water Horizon? Huge amounts of money was spent to figure out exactly what happened. Similar sorts of money should be made available to discover the causes of software incidents. It's far too easy for companies to hide a software incident and then hide behind lawyers while blaming others. Bugs should be reviewed and dealt with by a profession independent investigation board, not by lawyers.