3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoFair 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 agoNote that they had audit trails of various kinds, but some of the bugs yielded incorrect logs.
- Zhyl 3y agoI didn't know that and that's insidious