3 ms·

I have seen a lot of dumb legal takes, usually by non-lawyers and non-judges. But this is so very dumb.

icyberbullyu 3y ago
This is just an assumption that generally, computers are doing what they're supposed to. It doesn't mean that you can't challenge it with evidence. With the amount of evidence being submitted being increasingly digital, I'm sure the intention behind this is to stop people from jamming up the courts by calling every single digital artefact into question.
- euroderf 3y ago
  Your point is valid. But it does sound like a barrier to entry. In the sense of, increasing fixed costs for access to the legal system on a fair basis
- minimalized 3y ago
  The article makes a strong case otherwise. Proving a system built and maintained by a large, well heeled entity is unlikely to be possible for all except other large, well heeled entities.
- kingofkyiv 3y ago
  [dead]
- zardo 3y ago
  How are you supposed to get the evidence in a situation like this? It's not like they're going to give you the keys to the server room.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  But every single digital artifact is questionable. It's inconvenient but it's also true.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  > This is just an assumption that generally, computers are doing what they're supposed to. It's more than that. You don't have to instruct a jury that they have to accept that a person does what they're supposed to do unless proven otherwise... unless that person wrote code for a computer.
mmcdermott 3y ago
The linked document doesn't feel unreasonable to me. The concrete example given in the document is the Post Office Horizon Scandal where shortfalls in accounts were identified based on computer records. All the working presumption correctly would mean is that the defense can't be an idle "well, it's a computer it had bugs". If the computerized records are provided as evidence, the defense has to give a reason to believe that bugs account for those shortfalls. The alternative would be to say that only a system that has been proven correct could be used as evidence which would force pretty much all accounting back to paper.
- Infernal 3y ago
  > The alternative would be to say that only a system that has been proven correct could be used as evidence which would force pretty much all accounting back to paper. Assuming that the paper accounting could be proven correct, when the computerized accounting could not, your proposed alternative would seem to be an upgrade.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Paper accounting seems significantly more error prone, at least for a given level of convenience, right? I mean the computer might be worried about comic rays flipping bits, but ink on paper can be smudged by fingers, and they don’t even have to be traveling at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light. You can make paper backups of course, but you can also make electronic ones, the electronic ones can be shipped around the world basically for free.
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      The legal system already has checks and balances to account for errors in paper accounting. They don't require an assumption that the paper accounting is correct, but rather rely on the jury to make judgements, because juries are familiar with the limitations of paper accounting. We're still a long way away from pulling that off with computers, but the idea that someone could have made a mistake shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
- 3y ago
kd5bjo 3y ago
I can understand how they got here: Most computer-provided evidence will be something like a printout of an email thread or a saved Excel sheet. Proving that the hard drive, printer, CPU, drivers, application software, etc. are all untampered and working properly is a huge amount of work that will very rarely end up finding a problem. The original rule-makers probably never considered the idea of a giant, bespoke enterprise software system; it's just a particularly terrible edge case that got caught up in what looks like a reasonable efficiency measure.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  > I can understand how they got here: Most computer-provided evidence will be something like a printout of an email thread or a saved Excel sheet. Proving that the hard drive, printer, CPU, drivers, application software, etc. are all untampered and working properly is a huge amount of work that will very rarely end up finding a problem. Eye witnesses, expert witnesses, etc. can be unreliable. It's very difficult to prove that they have not made any errors. However, we don't ask juries to presume they are infallible.
  - NoboruWataya 3y ago
    > Eye witnesses, expert witnesses, etc. can be unreliable. It's very difficult to prove that they have not made any errors. However, we don't ask juries to presume they are infallible. There is a difference between being infallible and being correct. No one assumes that computers cannot err, just that they have not erred unless there is reason to believe they have. Likewise, if a witness gives coherent evidence and no one has any reason to assume they are wrong or lying, that evidence will not generally be disregarded simply because humans are fallible and therefore the evidence is presumed to be flawed.
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      With an eyewitness, simply saying that you think they are mistaken, with no evidence as to how they are mistaken, is sufficient. In this case, it was easier for the courts to believe hundreds of people were lying and committing fraud, then that there might have been a problem in the software. The only way to change the court's perspective was to provide evidence that was not even accessible to the defendants. There's no reason to think that programmers are less fallible than other people.
kube-system 3y ago
No, this is dumb: > required the prosecution to prove that a computer was operating properly at the relevant time before a document produced by such a computer could be admitted as evidence. But I'm sure you actually mean to agree, and that your comment was just garbled in transit. :)
- minimalized 3y ago
  It's over simplification of a nuanced situation. Over simplification in either direction is a problem.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    A presumption is not a simplification of anything. It is a starting point.
    - minimalized 3y ago
      That's fair. But as the article shows, that presumption ends up weighing heavily in favor of computers working correctly. The nuance is in the difference between plumbing, which generally works well, and the bespoke business logic of individual applications, especially when said logic was responsible for the existence of critical evidence in a criminal case. The difference matters enormously and is not observed at all in the law.

This is just an assumption that generally, computers are doing what they're supposed to. It doesn't mean that you can't challenge it with evidence. With the amount of evidence being submitted being increasingly digital, I'm sure the intention behind this is to stop people from jamming up the courts by calling every single digital artefact into question.

euroderf 3y ago
Your point is valid. But it does sound like a barrier to entry. In the sense of, increasing fixed costs for access to the legal system on a fair basis
minimalized 3y ago
The article makes a strong case otherwise. Proving a system built and maintained by a large, well heeled entity is unlikely to be possible for all except other large, well heeled entities.
kingofkyiv 3y ago
[dead]
zardo 3y ago
How are you supposed to get the evidence in a situation like this? It's not like they're going to give you the keys to the server room.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
But every single digital artifact is questionable. It's inconvenient but it's also true.
cbsmith 3y ago
> This is just an assumption that generally, computers are doing what they're supposed to. It's more than that. You don't have to instruct a jury that they have to accept that a person does what they're supposed to do unless proven otherwise... unless that person wrote code for a computer.

mmcdermott 3y ago

The linked document doesn't feel unreasonable to me. The concrete example given in the document is the Post Office Horizon Scandal where shortfalls in accounts were identified based on computer records. All the working presumption correctly would mean is that the defense can't be an idle "well, it's a computer it had bugs". If the computerized records are provided as evidence, the defense has to give a reason to believe that bugs account for those shortfalls. The alternative would be to say that only a system that has been proven correct could be used as evidence which would force pretty much all accounting back to paper.

Infernal 3y ago
> The alternative would be to say that only a system that has been proven correct could be used as evidence which would force pretty much all accounting back to paper. Assuming that the paper accounting could be proven correct, when the computerized accounting could not, your proposed alternative would seem to be an upgrade.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Paper accounting seems significantly more error prone, at least for a given level of convenience, right? I mean the computer might be worried about comic rays flipping bits, but ink on paper can be smudged by fingers, and they don’t even have to be traveling at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light. You can make paper backups of course, but you can also make electronic ones, the electronic ones can be shipped around the world basically for free.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    The legal system already has checks and balances to account for errors in paper accounting. They don't require an assumption that the paper accounting is correct, but rather rely on the jury to make judgements, because juries are familiar with the limitations of paper accounting. We're still a long way away from pulling that off with computers, but the idea that someone could have made a mistake shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
3y ago

kd5bjo 3y ago

I can understand how they got here: Most computer-provided evidence will be something like a printout of an email thread or a saved Excel sheet. Proving that the hard drive, printer, CPU, drivers, application software, etc. are all untampered and working properly is a huge amount of work that will very rarely end up finding a problem. The original rule-makers probably never considered the idea of a giant, bespoke enterprise software system; it's just a particularly terrible edge case that got caught up in what looks like a reasonable efficiency measure.

cbsmith 3y ago
> I can understand how they got here: Most computer-provided evidence will be something like a printout of an email thread or a saved Excel sheet. Proving that the hard drive, printer, CPU, drivers, application software, etc. are all untampered and working properly is a huge amount of work that will very rarely end up finding a problem. Eye witnesses, expert witnesses, etc. can be unreliable. It's very difficult to prove that they have not made any errors. However, we don't ask juries to presume they are infallible.
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  > Eye witnesses, expert witnesses, etc. can be unreliable. It's very difficult to prove that they have not made any errors. However, we don't ask juries to presume they are infallible. There is a difference between being infallible and being correct. No one assumes that computers cannot err, just that they have not erred unless there is reason to believe they have. Likewise, if a witness gives coherent evidence and no one has any reason to assume they are wrong or lying, that evidence will not generally be disregarded simply because humans are fallible and therefore the evidence is presumed to be flawed.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    With an eyewitness, simply saying that you think they are mistaken, with no evidence as to how they are mistaken, is sufficient. In this case, it was easier for the courts to believe hundreds of people were lying and committing fraud, then that there might have been a problem in the software. The only way to change the court's perspective was to provide evidence that was not even accessible to the defendants. There's no reason to think that programmers are less fallible than other people.

kube-system 3y ago

No, this is dumb: > required the prosecution to prove that a computer was operating properly at the relevant time before a document produced by such a computer could be admitted as evidence. But I'm sure you actually mean to agree, and that your comment was just garbled in transit. :)

minimalized 3y ago
It's over simplification of a nuanced situation. Over simplification in either direction is a problem.
- kube-system 3y ago
  A presumption is not a simplification of anything. It is a starting point.
  - minimalized 3y ago
    That's fair. But as the article shows, that presumption ends up weighing heavily in favor of computers working correctly. The nuance is in the difference between plumbing, which generally works well, and the bespoke business logic of individual applications, especially when said logic was responsible for the existence of critical evidence in a criminal case. The difference matters enormously and is not observed at all in the law.