> the assumption should be that it does not work, and it should be up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the software is working correctly. Phrased differe

> the assumption should be that it does not work, and it should be up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the software is working correctly. Phrased differently, you want them to prove there aren't any bugs. You can't prove a negative so this is a non-starter. There will always be "but what if it requires specific timing" or "maybe it relies on some other software being installed" or "maybe the computer had a virus". It's basically the same reason the government has to prove you're guilty; because you can't prove you're not guilty. I think the onus has to be on the defense to prove some kind of a bug exists. The interesting question is whether that implies that the software provider should be required to hand over the source code in discovery. It seems unreasonable to force someone to go on a bug-hunt where their future hangs in the balance without access to the source code. Ditto for providing some kind of a test instance; I can see companies being leery of providing binaries to someone trying to publicly prove there are bugs.