4 ms·

Can you name a single accounting system that hasn't lost money over the years? All the big players had major major flaws. I agree with the parent that although

Can you name a single accounting system that hasn't lost money over the years? All the big players had major major flaws. I agree with the parent that although Fujitsu is at fault, theirs is honest: i personally find the criminal fault to be with managers and judges who will convict someone based on proofless software-produced "evidence". If i as an individual who knew nothing about anything went to testify against 700 postmaster/postmistresses, would they ever be convicted? Why would a computer program have more credibility than me, a random bystander? Computers are just weird things manipulating bits, and noone should ever trust them for anything serious, especially to convict other people of wrongdoing. My personal legal interpretation is that the judges failed (as they very often do) to uphold the legal standards of presumption of innocence and of examining the seriousness of claims produced in the tribunal. The fault rests with them. EDIT: of course if fujitsu engineers testified that they would jail people based on data produced by their software, that makes them responsible. but the judge is equally responsible not to have independent experts (plural) verify those claims

mannykannot 5y ago
> of course if fujitsu engineers testified that they would jail people based on data produced by their software, that makes them responsible... The engineers would not have been testifying about sentencing, but about whether the system output was accurate. You yourself have just argued that all accounting systems have flaws, the engineers undoubtedly knew that, and if they testified to the accuracy of the output, then they would be culpable of making material claims that they knew had not been verified, and could be wrong. > ...but the judge is equally responsible not to have independent experts (plural) verify those claims. It is very obvious in retrospect that quite a few people should have been more suspicious, but that would do very little to absolve Fujitsu of the high moral and legal responsibility of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth if they were called upon to do so. "You should have checked what I said" is neither a legal nor a moral excuse for perjury. Update: "The data used in court has since been proved to be wrong and former Fujitsu members of staff are currently being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for potential perjury in the trials of subpostmasters that were blamed for unexplained losses." https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252509066/Fujitsu-escaped-huge-lawsuit-because-Post-Office-behaved-so-badly-in-Horizon-scandal https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252509066/Fujitsu-escape... To be clear: None of the above in any way absolves the Post Office of its much greater responsibility.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Thanks for clarifications, that makes perfect sense. I'm still more angry at the criminals-in-robes we call judges, but of course testifying your software has zero flaws (in any case, and especially if you know otherwise) is ethically wrong.

mannykannot 5y ago

> of course if fujitsu engineers testified that they would jail people based on data produced by their software, that makes them responsible... The engineers would not have been testifying about sentencing, but about whether the system output was accurate. You yourself have just argued that all accounting systems have flaws, the engineers undoubtedly knew that, and if they testified to the accuracy of the output, then they would be culpable of making material claims that they knew had not been verified, and could be wrong. > ...but the judge is equally responsible not to have independent experts (plural) verify those claims. It is very obvious in retrospect that quite a few people should have been more suspicious, but that would do very little to absolve Fujitsu of the high moral and legal responsibility of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth if they were called upon to do so. "You should have checked what I said" is neither a legal nor a moral excuse for perjury. Update: "The data used in court has since been proved to be wrong and former Fujitsu members of staff are currently being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for potential perjury in the trials of subpostmasters that were blamed for unexplained losses." https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252509066/Fujitsu-escaped-huge-lawsuit-because-Post-Office-behaved-so-badly-in-Horizon-scandal https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252509066/Fujitsu-escape... To be clear: None of the above in any way absolves the Post Office of its much greater responsibility.

southerntofu 5y ago
Thanks for clarifications, that makes perfect sense. I'm still more angry at the criminals-in-robes we call judges, but of course testifying your software has zero flaws (in any case, and especially if you know otherwise) is ethically wrong.