> 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 h

> 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. This really is an incredibly stupid law. I could see assuming that computers are correctly operating as _instructed_ (e.g. the cpu doesn’t have bugs), but assuming that software is implemented correctly is just crazy. Everyone knows that software is buggy and updates are released all the time. Declaring that software is infallible is ridiculous.