4 ms·

While I do agree in principle, I think it's also the case that "the software" has been used as a convenient scapegoat and cover for what were incredibly poor pr

by tailspin2019 3y ago

While I do agree in principle, I think it's also the case that "the software" has been used as a convenient scapegoat and cover for what were incredibly poor practices and dishonest, irresponsible conduct. The fact that software is involved is in some ways a side issue - and while I do agree we as techies do need to consider the responsibility that we have, I'm equally frustrated how the narrative in the Post Office case has been deliberately shifted towards "it was because the software had bugs" as opposed to "multiple people in charge were deliberately deceitful and behaved completely reprehensibly". This is borne out by the UK government's attempted shift of all the responsibility on to Fujitsu in the Post Office case (who are absolutely not blameless) while trying to push attention away from the Post Office's - and by extension the government's - own considerable culpability. I'm sure they'll seek to do the same in this Ofsted situation.

adroniser 3y ago
Absolutely. As far as I know both Fujitsu and the Post Office were aware of the bugs in the system, and deliberately covered them up.
graemep 3y ago
and the government were told the system was likely to be unreliable before they even bought it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mulgan-horizon-post-office-tony-blair-fujitsu/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mu... The whole thing was a shambles and there was no scrutiny from the start.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Postmasters were literally calling Fujitsu support and telling them that they can see the software is literally wrong(giving explicit examples of depositing £100 and the software showing that there should be £200 in the till) and literally nothing was done about it.
oogali 3y ago
The scapegoating happens because the software is the one "tangible" thing in the chain of blame. It's the one thing that can't be queried and reply with "if I had known...". I do agree with you that Ofsted will likely use the same deflection tactics. It is a failure of all of the humans involved. Whether it is inadequate acceptance testing, prematurely closed bug reports, optimizing for [unreasonable] timelines, or lack of oversight (and to be clear, I am not advocating for micromanagement). I feel both of these statements are true: 1) certain people bear more fault than others and 2) developers aren't blameless. I would like us to reduce our "blame surface area" with a reasonable amount of effort over what we _can_ control.
PaulRobinson 3y ago
I get it, but I have to disagree on two ground. Firstly, in UK law there is an implicit assumption that computers are "reliable". This means that the burden of proof is on the accused proving the software has bugs, rather than them being presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means in the Post Office example, people were convicted because they couldn't prove the software had bugs, they were just saying "you have to prove I'm guilty, because I'm not", and the court said "no, we don't, computers are reliable and that proves you are lying and therefore guilty". In the Ofsted case, given that schools can be put into special measures, teachers and headteachers fired, and in one case a headteacher killed herself because of the data collected and decision made on it, if those systems are not reliable they are not fit for purpose, because it turns the innocent into victims in terms of criminal, and civil employment law. There have been calls for this assumption to be changed [1], but right now: if you are innocent but a piece of software says you are guilty, in the UK the burden of proof falls to you, regardless of how awful the people, their processes and conduct are on the other side. Secondly, there's a deeper moral issue here. Engineers are arguably aiding and abetting. It is almost certainly the case that engineers working on Horizon and Ofsted systems did not tell all the truth all the time at the bequest of their managers and other colleagues throughout all this. "Just doing my job", is the excuse of the scoundrel. I do not buy it. If you're complicit with despicable people, you're complicit. End of. Yes, UK HMG has answers to give, culpability and responsibility, but let's not pretend that engineers built terrible systems, didn't have to face any consequences, and were enabled by arse covering exercises further up the chain. We can - and must - do better than this. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-on-computer-evidence-to-avoid-horizon-repeat-ministers-urged https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-o...
- dazc 3y ago
  'That means in the Post Office example, people were convicted because they couldn't prove the software had bugs, they were just saying "you have to prove I'm guilty, because I'm not", and the court said "no, we don't, computers are reliable and that proves you are lying and therefore guilty".' Not sure this is true, people were mainly convicted because they pleaded guilty to avoid going to jail. There may be instances where you are correct but I'm not aware of any? The general rule of being innocent unless proven guilty does, generally, hold. The issue with these cases is that many people convicted early on had no proper legal representation. Alan Bates, for instance, refused to accept the charges and was never convicted because no evidence of his guilt was ever presented. He stood his ground and was an outlier case.
Gibbon1 3y ago
Your comment brings up an old memory. Lady mentioned once when she was a regional manager at a department store chain. They started having the till go short every so often at one store. Usually it's one person stealing. But looking at the video's they couldn't tell who. And there wasn't a pattern. Then it started happening at two other stores. And then another. The head of security had a hunch, took her to one of the stores after hours and pulled the register apart and they found two hundred dollars inside the machine. The first store had been the first to get a new model register. And the new model tended to slurp bills out of the till if you closed it too hard. So this isn't a new software thing. It's a problem with a management culture that shifts blame rather than get to the root of the problem.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's a great case, and well worth studying for anybody involved in forensics or adjacent fields. Way too often the first target for 'the blame' is stuck with it without someone taking the trouble to really find out what is happening.

adroniser 3y ago

Absolutely. As far as I know both Fujitsu and the Post Office were aware of the bugs in the system, and deliberately covered them up.

graemep 3y ago

and the government were told the system was likely to be unreliable before they even bought it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mulgan-horizon-post-office-tony-blair-fujitsu/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mu... The whole thing was a shambles and there was no scrutiny from the start.

gambiting 3y ago
Postmasters were literally calling Fujitsu support and telling them that they can see the software is literally wrong(giving explicit examples of depositing £100 and the software showing that there should be £200 in the till) and literally nothing was done about it.

oogali 3y ago

The scapegoating happens because the software is the one "tangible" thing in the chain of blame. It's the one thing that can't be queried and reply with "if I had known...". I do agree with you that Ofsted will likely use the same deflection tactics. It is a failure of all of the humans involved. Whether it is inadequate acceptance testing, prematurely closed bug reports, optimizing for [unreasonable] timelines, or lack of oversight (and to be clear, I am not advocating for micromanagement). I feel both of these statements are true: 1) certain people bear more fault than others and 2) developers aren't blameless. I would like us to reduce our "blame surface area" with a reasonable amount of effort over what we _can_ control.

PaulRobinson 3y ago

I get it, but I have to disagree on two ground. Firstly, in UK law there is an implicit assumption that computers are "reliable". This means that the burden of proof is on the accused proving the software has bugs, rather than them being presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means in the Post Office example, people were convicted because they couldn't prove the software had bugs, they were just saying "you have to prove I'm guilty, because I'm not", and the court said "no, we don't, computers are reliable and that proves you are lying and therefore guilty". In the Ofsted case, given that schools can be put into special measures, teachers and headteachers fired, and in one case a headteacher killed herself because of the data collected and decision made on it, if those systems are not reliable they are not fit for purpose, because it turns the innocent into victims in terms of criminal, and civil employment law. There have been calls for this assumption to be changed [1], but right now: if you are innocent but a piece of software says you are guilty, in the UK the burden of proof falls to you, regardless of how awful the people, their processes and conduct are on the other side. Secondly, there's a deeper moral issue here. Engineers are arguably aiding and abetting. It is almost certainly the case that engineers working on Horizon and Ofsted systems did not tell all the truth all the time at the bequest of their managers and other colleagues throughout all this. "Just doing my job", is the excuse of the scoundrel. I do not buy it. If you're complicit with despicable people, you're complicit. End of. Yes, UK HMG has answers to give, culpability and responsibility, but let's not pretend that engineers built terrible systems, didn't have to face any consequences, and were enabled by arse covering exercises further up the chain. We can - and must - do better than this. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-on-computer-evidence-to-avoid-horizon-repeat-ministers-urged https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-o...

dazc 3y ago
'That means in the Post Office example, people were convicted because they couldn't prove the software had bugs, they were just saying "you have to prove I'm guilty, because I'm not", and the court said "no, we don't, computers are reliable and that proves you are lying and therefore guilty".' Not sure this is true, people were mainly convicted because they pleaded guilty to avoid going to jail. There may be instances where you are correct but I'm not aware of any? The general rule of being innocent unless proven guilty does, generally, hold. The issue with these cases is that many people convicted early on had no proper legal representation. Alan Bates, for instance, refused to accept the charges and was never convicted because no evidence of his guilt was ever presented. He stood his ground and was an outlier case.

Gibbon1 3y ago

Your comment brings up an old memory. Lady mentioned once when she was a regional manager at a department store chain. They started having the till go short every so often at one store. Usually it's one person stealing. But looking at the video's they couldn't tell who. And there wasn't a pattern. Then it started happening at two other stores. And then another. The head of security had a hunch, took her to one of the stores after hours and pulled the register apart and they found two hundred dollars inside the machine. The first store had been the first to get a new model register. And the new model tended to slurp bills out of the till if you closed it too hard. So this isn't a new software thing. It's a problem with a management culture that shifts blame rather than get to the root of the problem.

jacquesm 3y ago
That's a great case, and well worth studying for anybody involved in forensics or adjacent fields. Way too often the first target for 'the blame' is stuck with it without someone taking the trouble to really find out what is happening.