4 ms·

> There's an extent to which I think this is reasonable. If I'm accused of fraud based on evidence recovered from a bank computer, it should not be the case tha

> There's an extent to which I think this is reasonable. If I'm accused of fraud based on evidence recovered from a bank computer, it should not be the case that I can require the prosecution to prove that the bank's computers function correctly, and the evidence be thrown out in case the prosecution are unable to do so. So a poor individual with no resources should find experts to analyze a software he doesn't even have access to (I know, discovery, but the practical limitations often make it near impossible to find the error within a given time, like having the access only in an isolated room without the internet or your own software, or having an access only to printed source code on paper), rather than the prosecutor (the state) or the company that definitely have the resources? Obviously almost no one would go to jail then. But this would be because of a very low coding standard. You pretty much can't prove the validity of software, because somewhere around 99,99% just isn't coded in a language and regime that would guarantee being bug-free. Check out the video by Veritasium "The Universe is Hostile to Computers" [1] - how much software, do you think, has internal error correction implemented to deal with a possible cosmic ray flipping a bit? The solution is to have extensive logs of data, stored by independent actors, with a lot of redundancy or otherwise error detection and correction. I find it horrifying that someone as well versed in law as you is fine with putting the burden of proof on the defendant, because it would be impractical to force programmers of serious software with serious consequences to actually employ serious standards of work... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaZ_RSt0KP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaZ_RSt0KP8

d1sxeyes 3y ago
> I find it horrifying that someone as well versed in law as you is fine with putting the burden of proof on the defendant, because it would be impractical to force programmers of serious software with serious consequences to actually employ serious standards of work... That’s not exactly my position. Basically my concern is that with the hearsay provision of PACE, a fraudster could conceivably require the prosecution to prove that Excel works from first principles, which is absurd. It’s also patently absurd to refuse to entertain the idea that a computer system may produce an incorrect response. But the law is an ass and you can only work with what you’re given.

d1sxeyes 3y ago

> I find it horrifying that someone as well versed in law as you is fine with putting the burden of proof on the defendant, because it would be impractical to force programmers of serious software with serious consequences to actually employ serious standards of work... That’s not exactly my position. Basically my concern is that with the hearsay provision of PACE, a fraudster could conceivably require the prosecution to prove that Excel works from first principles, which is absurd. It’s also patently absurd to refuse to entertain the idea that a computer system may produce an incorrect response. But the law is an ass and you can only work with what you’re given.