4 ms·

Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit against the company. They are stating false things about their product and causing people harm. An official and highly paid r

Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit against the company. They are stating false things about their product and causing people harm. An official and highly paid representative sent to testify in court couldn't just be dismissed as "well, one salesman misspoke, not our fault". This would be the just recourse, but I'm aware that probably nobody can afford this justice.

willy_k 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38602914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38602914
soerxpso 3y ago
Saying you're "not aware of" something that is real but that you've managed to avoid awareness of, isn't illegal. The individual representative sent to testify probably really was unaware, and the company probably does a good job of making itself as a whole mostly unaware. As long as all knowledge of something routinely goes straight to the shredder before anyone important hears about it, unawareness is achieved.
- xkcd-sucks 3y ago
  Yeah but those kinds of games have been standard practice in courts since time immemorial. Should it not be standard practice by now to clearly establish the QA/QC process, bugs opened and closed, roles and key people responsible for product features etc. during court proceedings?
pdonis 3y ago
The problem is not the company per se but the fact that the government is allowed to get away with having an "expert witness" testify in court with no supporting evidence about something like this. The government should be required to produce, and keep up to date, positive evidence about the accuracy of such systems, collected independently of the manufacturer.
- chaps 3y ago
  You'd think so, right? At least when I was researching all of this last year, absolutely no accuracy testing had been done in Chicagoland.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Can the defense have an "expert witness" refute the claims? There's also the issue of jury selection. If a potential juror seems like they might question faulty statistics, for example, and the prosecutors know they will be presenting some statistics, that juror wont be selected.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Can the defense have an "expert witness" refute the claims? Yes, but the defense witness can make unsupported claims in the opposite direction. Neither "expert witness" is required to actually support their testimony. > There's also the issue of jury selection. Yes, definitely. Someone else upthread mentioned that too.

willy_k 3y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38602914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38602914

soerxpso 3y ago

Saying you're "not aware of" something that is real but that you've managed to avoid awareness of, isn't illegal. The individual representative sent to testify probably really was unaware, and the company probably does a good job of making itself as a whole mostly unaware. As long as all knowledge of something routinely goes straight to the shredder before anyone important hears about it, unawareness is achieved.

xkcd-sucks 3y ago
Yeah but those kinds of games have been standard practice in courts since time immemorial. Should it not be standard practice by now to clearly establish the QA/QC process, bugs opened and closed, roles and key people responsible for product features etc. during court proceedings?

pdonis 3y ago

The problem is not the company per se but the fact that the government is allowed to get away with having an "expert witness" testify in court with no supporting evidence about something like this. The government should be required to produce, and keep up to date, positive evidence about the accuracy of such systems, collected independently of the manufacturer.

chaps 3y ago
You'd think so, right? At least when I was researching all of this last year, absolutely no accuracy testing had been done in Chicagoland.
Buttons840 3y ago
Can the defense have an "expert witness" refute the claims? There's also the issue of jury selection. If a potential juror seems like they might question faulty statistics, for example, and the prosecutors know they will be presenting some statistics, that juror wont be selected.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Can the defense have an "expert witness" refute the claims? Yes, but the defense witness can make unsupported claims in the opposite direction. Neither "expert witness" is required to actually support their testimony. > There's also the issue of jury selection. Yes, definitely. Someone else upthread mentioned that too.