3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt's over simplification of a nuanced situation. Over simplification in either direction is a problem.
- kube-system 3y agoA presumption is not a simplification of anything. It is a starting point.
- minimalized 3y agoThat'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.