3 ms·

The prosecutions were a result of a fundamental fault in English Law. I've covered it extensively here [0,1] The most important outcome we can have from this a

The prosecutions were a result of a fundamental fault in English Law. I've covered it extensively here [0,1] The most important outcome we can have from this affair is not assigning blame to executives, or software engineers, or lawyers. Nor is it getting compensation for those whose lives were ruined or ended. Although both would be nice justice. It is getting the law changed from what is the criminally fucking insane idea that we should treat computer operations as correct by default. Otherwise this travesty will happen again, and again, and again, as it already is in the area of pensions and healthcare. [0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=23 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=23 [1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=24 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=24

chrisjj 2y ago
> The prosecutions were a result of a fundamental fault in English Law. I've covered it extensively here [0,1] If you mean the prosecutions' /outcome/, I agree the presumption of correctness of computer behaviour is problematic. Though this is a rebuttable presumption and it seems very odd that the prosections included no successful rebuttal that I have seen. Perhaps such cases were the ones the PO chose not to press?? But what I meant by prosecutions was prosecutions. Being actions of the PO rather than the court, they cannot reasonably be held to be a result of the law.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  > and it seems very odd that the prosecution included no successful rebuttal that I have seen. Perhaps such cases were the ones the PO chose not to press?? Indeed. I do understand what you mean about the actual (legal) prosecution, but if you'll allow me to use the word in it's more ordinary sense.. to pursue... then Bates himself is a case in point, no? He is a technologically and legally savvy person. He would not sign anything that made him legally responsible for system errors and when he challenged the PO with technical talk they just silently fired him. I think what we see here is a prototype of a particularly nasty kind of "techno bullying" that seeks to bamboozle and intimidate ordinary people who put faith in technology. People assume that they are not being lied to by "experts". Those days have sadly gone. These are bullies who will only prosecute people who are too poorly educated to fight back. This is exactly the sort of thing that disgusts me. And it disgusted the late Ross Anderson too. The change we need is in the law, to take away the weapons that these bullies use to extract and intimidate... we must assume that systems and those who build, maintain and defend them are not disinterested, and so technical or expert accounts cannot be trusted prima facie The burden should be reversed. Another thing I'd like to see, is the legal ability to strip people of qualifications and accolades. If you're a chartered engineer and you lie to protect company profits then you can already get ousted from a professional body. I think if engineers or managers lie or cover up technical facts in court they should lose their status, MBA, or masters degree. Otherwise we're allowing digital tech, especially around security, to become a bullshitter's profession.
  - chrisjj 2y ago
    > Bates himself is a case in point, no? He is a technologically and legally savvy person. He would not sign anything that made him legally responsible for system errors But he did sign the standard SPM contract, which once Horizon arrived, did make him legally responsible for some consequences of system errors. To avoid that, he have had to have quit. > The change we need is in the law, to take away the weapons that these bullies use to extract and intimidate... Agreed. But can the court system afford the huge retrial load this would deliver for sundry non-PO cases going back decades? Or must Parliament hand out free pardons for those too?
    - nonrandomstring 2y ago
      > But he did sign the standard SPM contract, which once Horizon arrived, did make him legally responsible Oh I didn't realise Bates' had his hand forced. They way the ITV documentary framed it he spotted the trap, so they terminated his contract. > can the court system afford the huge retrial No. Truth is, it's in ruins. Have you ever read The Secret Barrister's "How The Law Is Broken"? Very good imho. I'm betting on a surprise Royal pardon, In fact I'm holding my popcorn for King Charlie pulling some outrageous stuff on his last legs, god blessim.
      - chrisjj 2y ago
        "The trap" was possibly this different thing: "A seventh postmaster, Alan Bates, refused to sign his weekly accounts, saying it would have made him liable for any losses." https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240089230/Bankruptcy-prosecution-and-disrupted-livelihoods-Postmasters-tell-their-story https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240089230/Bankruptcy-pr... IM

chrisjj 2y ago

> The prosecutions were a result of a fundamental fault in English Law. I've covered it extensively here [0,1] If you mean the prosecutions' /outcome/, I agree the presumption of correctness of computer behaviour is problematic. Though this is a rebuttable presumption and it seems very odd that the prosections included no successful rebuttal that I have seen. Perhaps such cases were the ones the PO chose not to press?? But what I meant by prosecutions was prosecutions. Being actions of the PO rather than the court, they cannot reasonably be held to be a result of the law.

nonrandomstring 2y ago
> and it seems very odd that the prosecution included no successful rebuttal that I have seen. Perhaps such cases were the ones the PO chose not to press?? Indeed. I do understand what you mean about the actual (legal) prosecution, but if you'll allow me to use the word in it's more ordinary sense.. to pursue... then Bates himself is a case in point, no? He is a technologically and legally savvy person. He would not sign anything that made him legally responsible for system errors and when he challenged the PO with technical talk they just silently fired him. I think what we see here is a prototype of a particularly nasty kind of "techno bullying" that seeks to bamboozle and intimidate ordinary people who put faith in technology. People assume that they are not being lied to by "experts". Those days have sadly gone. These are bullies who will only prosecute people who are too poorly educated to fight back. This is exactly the sort of thing that disgusts me. And it disgusted the late Ross Anderson too. The change we need is in the law, to take away the weapons that these bullies use to extract and intimidate... we must assume that systems and those who build, maintain and defend them are not disinterested, and so technical or expert accounts cannot be trusted prima facie The burden should be reversed. Another thing I'd like to see, is the legal ability to strip people of qualifications and accolades. If you're a chartered engineer and you lie to protect company profits then you can already get ousted from a professional body. I think if engineers or managers lie or cover up technical facts in court they should lose their status, MBA, or masters degree. Otherwise we're allowing digital tech, especially around security, to become a bullshitter's profession.
- chrisjj 2y ago
  > Bates himself is a case in point, no? He is a technologically and legally savvy person. He would not sign anything that made him legally responsible for system errors But he did sign the standard SPM contract, which once Horizon arrived, did make him legally responsible for some consequences of system errors. To avoid that, he have had to have quit. > The change we need is in the law, to take away the weapons that these bullies use to extract and intimidate... Agreed. But can the court system afford the huge retrial load this would deliver for sundry non-PO cases going back decades? Or must Parliament hand out free pardons for those too?
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago
    > But he did sign the standard SPM contract, which once Horizon arrived, did make him legally responsible Oh I didn't realise Bates' had his hand forced. They way the ITV documentary framed it he spotted the trap, so they terminated his contract. > can the court system afford the huge retrial No. Truth is, it's in ruins. Have you ever read The Secret Barrister's "How The Law Is Broken"? Very good imho. I'm betting on a surprise Royal pardon, In fact I'm holding my popcorn for King Charlie pulling some outrageous stuff on his last legs, god blessim.
    - chrisjj 2y ago
      "The trap" was possibly this different thing: "A seventh postmaster, Alan Bates, refused to sign his weekly accounts, saying it would have made him liable for any losses." https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240089230/Bankruptcy-prosecution-and-disrupted-livelihoods-Postmasters-tell-their-story https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240089230/Bankruptcy-pr... IM