4 ms·
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 a
by icyberbullyu 2y 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 2y agoYour 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 2y agoThe 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 2y ago[dead]
- zardo 2y agoHow 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 2y agoBut every single digital artifact is questionable. It's inconvenient but it's also true.
- cbsmith 2y 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.