3 ms·

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

by 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.

by 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.