3 ms·

This is contrary to the principle of presumed innocence. This is presumed guilt. The burden should always be on the prosecution to prove guilt, and if that requ

This is contrary to the principle of presumed innocence. This is presumed guilt. The burden should always be on the prosecution to prove guilt, and if that requires the prosecution to prove the correctness of hardware, models, software, or data, then that is what should be required. And if the prosecution cannot prove the legitimacy of evidence, then than evidence should be disallowed. The standard does not have to be beyond all doubt. The standard is fine at beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution can replicate consistent evidence for and against the defendant using the same computer systems with simulated data, then that is probably enough to clear reasonable doubt. But the burden of proof should absolutely always be on the party wishing to use "evidence" to take someone else's property, freedom, or life. Assuming it's right is assuming guilt. That is the wrong principle.

kazinator 3y ago
> This is contrary to the principle of presumed innocence. No it isn't. It just means that some situation involving information from computers is "circumstantial evidence". If programs have to be proved correct, that basically means data from computers could never be introduced as circumstantial evidence. For instance, guns are normally assumed not to go off unless someone pulls the trigger. If a member of the Crips guns down a Bloods member across the street, he could claim that his gun accidentally went off the moment he was inadvertently pointing a gun in the direction of the enemy gang member. If he could prove that true, then it could be ruled an accidental death. If the defense lawyer does not make that argument, it will be assumed that there was nothing wrong with the gun, and thus someone pulled the trigger.
- kazinator 3y ago
  > For instance, guns are normally assumed not to go off unless someone pulls the trigger. Well, I looked into this; it's not that clear-cut.

kazinator 3y ago

> This is contrary to the principle of presumed innocence. No it isn't. It just means that some situation involving information from computers is "circumstantial evidence". If programs have to be proved correct, that basically means data from computers could never be introduced as circumstantial evidence. For instance, guns are normally assumed not to go off unless someone pulls the trigger. If a member of the Crips guns down a Bloods member across the street, he could claim that his gun accidentally went off the moment he was inadvertently pointing a gun in the direction of the enemy gang member. If he could prove that true, then it could be ruled an accidental death. If the defense lawyer does not make that argument, it will be assumed that there was nothing wrong with the gun, and thus someone pulled the trigger.

kazinator 3y ago
> For instance, guns are normally assumed not to go off unless someone pulls the trigger. Well, I looked into this; it's not that clear-cut.