8 ms·

> But it was also enabled by a belief in the reliability and credibility of IT systems, which is profoundly undeserved and inaccurate I don't think this is a r

> But it was also enabled by a belief in the reliability and credibility of IT systems, which is profoundly undeserved and inaccurate I don't think this is a real thing. The individual system was vouched for by senior people. That's why it wasn't questioned any further.

Zhyl 3y ago
Yes, because they believed in the infallibility of the software in the first instance. It was only subsequently that that believe changed to outright lying to cover their own backs.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I really don't think you can assume that. Other humans will have told them that it was good.
  - Zhyl 3y ago
    I can assume that a wider and deeper understanding of how software works would have meant that the investigations would have demanded a more thorough accounting of how the software worked, evidence provided by the system that it's calculations were correct (an audit trail) and that these questions would be asked at every juncture whenever the issue was raised to a new body or party. As can be seen by following the story, this wasn't the case. The only evidence provided in criminal cases was essentially a witness statement saying that the system was working correctly and that was the end of it.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > The only evidence provided in criminal cases was essentially a witness statement saying that the system was working correctly and that was the end of it. I'm not saying it wasn't. You're assuming a blind faith in all IT is the cause of this witness' belief. I'm disagreeing with you there.
      - Zhyl 3y ago
        I'm assuming an ignorance in IT which allows for a vote of confidence from a trusted party to go unquestioned and unsubstantiated. Not a blind faith in all IT.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Fair enough. I might have misread. It was this that made me think that: > it was also enabled by a belief in the reliability and credibility of IT systems
    - mike_hearn 3y ago
      Note that they had audit trails of various kinds, but some of the bugs yielded incorrect logs.
      - Zhyl 3y ago
        I didn't know that and that's insidious
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Yes, but even after getting lots of reports from sub postmasters complaining about bugs, they persisted in telling their victims that they were the only one reporting any issues. They were lying and knew they were lying as they could just force the sub postmaster to make good any "losses". They were most definitely acting maliciously.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I'm not disagreeing with that. If they're lying then we're not in the "blind faith" discussion any more anyway.
UglyToad 3y ago
The other complication was that a change in the law was made to assume computer systems were correct by default due to the problems with the existing law around breathalysers and speed cameras: "In 1997 the Law Commission published a paper which went into some detail about the use of mechanical and computer evidence in court. It seemed a little too fixated with the effective workings of speedometers, traffic lights and breathalysing devices called ‘Intoximeters.’ It concluded that the present law is ‘unsatisfactory’ because of the necessity for prosecutors to ‘prove that the computer is reliable.’"[0] The amended law changed the burden of proof from the prosecution proving the system functioned correctly to the defence proving it didn't, without access to the systems being used to prosecute them. [0]: The Great Post Office Scandal, Nick Wallis
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  This is a tricky one, because you could just claim that the system wrote audit trails that show you did something due to a bug. How do you prove it either way?
  - UglyToad 3y ago
    I think any (financial crime) case built solely on computer evidence is too weak to be prosecuted, even if that means you end up accepting some non-zero amount of financial crime. "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer" as someone once said. In the case of the sub-postmasters the Post Office, as far as I'm aware, never proved where these stolen sums supposedly went. The computer evidence was thought terminating and was the only thing (except false confessions under duress) used to secure these convictions, rather than proper investigative work.
    - VBprogrammer 3y ago
      Yeah, it seems crazy to me that they didn't have to prove where this money went. I suspect the majority of people caught stealing money in any other capacity are probably caught by the changes to their lifestyle being noticed before the financial irregularities are ever spotted.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> The individual system was vouched for by senior people. Well, how the Post Office commissioned the Horizon system is something that the inquiry doesn't seem to have got to yet. From what I've seen of the inquiry (not much), Post Office managers seem to have been desperate to protect the reputation of the Horizon system, and still are. But the miscarriages of justice have now been exposed, and the costs of putting them right are now unavoidable; so the reputation of Horizon can't now be just a matter of subpostmasters. My guess is that defects in Horizon, and damage to Horizon's reputation, will turn out to affect much more than the wronged subpostmasters. I suspect that some very large commercial contracts will turn out to be affected, and paying compensation to the subpostmasters will turn out to be a tiny component of the costs of this catastrophe. The Post Office is already warning that it may not be able to pay the compensation, and that the government will have to step up. The Post Office is a weird mess of subsidiaries and holding companies, and has contracts with all sorts of 3rd parties. I anticipate that we are going to witness a slooow explosion of the Post Office, over like ten years. It's ludicrous, of course, that a private company should be able to be complainant, investigator and prosecutor as well as being sole custodian of the evidence (Horizon logs). It's also ludicrous that the Post Office's lawyers, Cartwright King, should describe requests for disclosure as a "fishing expedition". Defendants shouldn't have to request disclosure of evidence that might help the defence; that is an obligation that falls on the prosecution as a matter of statute law. I'm waiting for the inquiry to find out how the Horizon system was commissioned, and how it was tested; and who was in charge of commissioning.
asdefghyk 3y ago
Re "...The individual system was vouched for by senior people......" The obvious mistake most likely made here is these senior people where not asked , " exactly how they formed this opinion." and what specific evidence they had. I would have said , if they could NOT produce the evidence , that verified their statement, their is no way they could make the statement as accurate about the system accuracy. The people must not have had experience in software development and testing.
- garyfirestorm 3y ago
  ‘Something something…I swear…to best of my knowledge…that the system works correctly’

Zhyl 3y ago

Yes, because they believed in the infallibility of the software in the first instance. It was only subsequently that that believe changed to outright lying to cover their own backs.

robertlagrant 3y ago
I really don't think you can assume that. Other humans will have told them that it was good.
- Zhyl 3y ago
  I can assume that a wider and deeper understanding of how software works would have meant that the investigations would have demanded a more thorough accounting of how the software worked, evidence provided by the system that it's calculations were correct (an audit trail) and that these questions would be asked at every juncture whenever the issue was raised to a new body or party. As can be seen by following the story, this wasn't the case. The only evidence provided in criminal cases was essentially a witness statement saying that the system was working correctly and that was the end of it.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > The only evidence provided in criminal cases was essentially a witness statement saying that the system was working correctly and that was the end of it. I'm not saying it wasn't. You're assuming a blind faith in all IT is the cause of this witness' belief. I'm disagreeing with you there.
    - Zhyl 3y ago
      I'm assuming an ignorance in IT which allows for a vote of confidence from a trusted party to go unquestioned and unsubstantiated. Not a blind faith in all IT.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Fair enough. I might have misread. It was this that made me think that: > it was also enabled by a belief in the reliability and credibility of IT systems
  - mike_hearn 3y ago
    Note that they had audit trails of various kinds, but some of the bugs yielded incorrect logs.
    - Zhyl 3y ago
      I didn't know that and that's insidious
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Yes, but even after getting lots of reports from sub postmasters complaining about bugs, they persisted in telling their victims that they were the only one reporting any issues. They were lying and knew they were lying as they could just force the sub postmaster to make good any "losses". They were most definitely acting maliciously.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with that. If they're lying then we're not in the "blind faith" discussion any more anyway.

UglyToad 3y ago

The other complication was that a change in the law was made to assume computer systems were correct by default due to the problems with the existing law around breathalysers and speed cameras: "In 1997 the Law Commission published a paper which went into some detail about the use of mechanical and computer evidence in court. It seemed a little too fixated with the effective workings of speedometers, traffic lights and breathalysing devices called ‘Intoximeters.’ It concluded that the present law is ‘unsatisfactory’ because of the necessity for prosecutors to ‘prove that the computer is reliable.’"[0] The amended law changed the burden of proof from the prosecution proving the system functioned correctly to the defence proving it didn't, without access to the systems being used to prosecute them. [0]: The Great Post Office Scandal, Nick Wallis

robertlagrant 3y ago
This is a tricky one, because you could just claim that the system wrote audit trails that show you did something due to a bug. How do you prove it either way?
- UglyToad 3y ago
  I think any (financial crime) case built solely on computer evidence is too weak to be prosecuted, even if that means you end up accepting some non-zero amount of financial crime. "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer" as someone once said. In the case of the sub-postmasters the Post Office, as far as I'm aware, never proved where these stolen sums supposedly went. The computer evidence was thought terminating and was the only thing (except false confessions under duress) used to secure these convictions, rather than proper investigative work.
  - VBprogrammer 3y ago
    Yeah, it seems crazy to me that they didn't have to prove where this money went. I suspect the majority of people caught stealing money in any other capacity are probably caught by the changes to their lifestyle being noticed before the financial irregularities are ever spotted.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> The individual system was vouched for by senior people. Well, how the Post Office commissioned the Horizon system is something that the inquiry doesn't seem to have got to yet. From what I've seen of the inquiry (not much), Post Office managers seem to have been desperate to protect the reputation of the Horizon system, and still are. But the miscarriages of justice have now been exposed, and the costs of putting them right are now unavoidable; so the reputation of Horizon can't now be just a matter of subpostmasters. My guess is that defects in Horizon, and damage to Horizon's reputation, will turn out to affect much more than the wronged subpostmasters. I suspect that some very large commercial contracts will turn out to be affected, and paying compensation to the subpostmasters will turn out to be a tiny component of the costs of this catastrophe. The Post Office is already warning that it may not be able to pay the compensation, and that the government will have to step up. The Post Office is a weird mess of subsidiaries and holding companies, and has contracts with all sorts of 3rd parties. I anticipate that we are going to witness a slooow explosion of the Post Office, over like ten years. It's ludicrous, of course, that a private company should be able to be complainant, investigator and prosecutor as well as being sole custodian of the evidence (Horizon logs). It's also ludicrous that the Post Office's lawyers, Cartwright King, should describe requests for disclosure as a "fishing expedition". Defendants shouldn't have to request disclosure of evidence that might help the defence; that is an obligation that falls on the prosecution as a matter of statute law. I'm waiting for the inquiry to find out how the Horizon system was commissioned, and how it was tested; and who was in charge of commissioning.

asdefghyk 3y ago

Re "...The individual system was vouched for by senior people......" The obvious mistake most likely made here is these senior people where not asked , " exactly how they formed this opinion." and what specific evidence they had. I would have said , if they could NOT produce the evidence , that verified their statement, their is no way they could make the statement as accurate about the system accuracy. The people must not have had experience in software development and testing.

garyfirestorm 3y ago
‘Something something…I swear…to best of my knowledge…that the system works correctly’