4 ms·
Interesting the author also suggests that the proposed legislative remedy (passing an Act of Parliament to fix the issue retrospectively instead of the Court ap
by giobox 3y ago
Interesting the author also suggests that the proposed legislative remedy (passing an Act of Parliament to fix the issue retrospectively instead of the Court appeal process) will allow the government to avoid scrutiny of the evidence they failed to disclose, saving themselves and Fujitsu from further embarassment:
> "The Court of Appeal could probably cope with the burden of overturning the wrongful convictions, given the similar nature of all the cases and the collapse of the prosecution. But appeal procedures might expose how PII hearings were abused to cover up Horizon system defects and failures to remedy them. The proposed exceptional legislation would remove the exposure of embarrassments to the state, the Post Office and Fujitsu. It would remove the legal problem which would be caused by appeal courts being forced to admit evidence which had been concealed by other courts. No doubt the legislative solution would adopt the ‘faulty program’ explanation, thus foreclosing investigation of other explanations, such as the tampering with Horizon data featured in the ITV drama, which was factual, not fictional."
Personally, I don't think this is the only reason a legislative solution is attractive (there are some positive reasons for considering that solution - speed and efficacy etc, these poor folks have waited a decade), but an interesting point.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoWhat does "embarrassment" mean in the context of a state? Sure, individuals can fear for their careers and reputations (but most of them are old or near retirement, and probably don't stand to lose homes, marriages or savings - unless Bates succeeds in private prosecutions). Fujitsu is a big enough international company to weather this. Some skulduggery is almost expected as part of an archaeological drama. Something weightier and more subtle is at stake. When the young boy called out that the Emperor had no clothes, it was not the Emperor himself who was "embarrassed", since head been standing there naked all along. It was the peoples' belief in his clothes. Two sacred things are on trial here; 1) The law itself. In particular the clinically insane conceit that "by default computer programs are assumed to be correct in British law". This goes against everything in computer science and software engineering and is mercilessly mocked by all experts. The onus needs reversing (especially with more use of "AI") [0,1,2] to make the default assumption be error unless it's possible to bring formal proofs (designs, logs) to court. 2) Public faith in technology. Other big cases are on the horizon (sorry) - such as UK pensions and immigration databases. When these blow up I see a cascade of #metoo cases, because people are getting their lives screwed by technology, and suffering awful injustices in many ways now. Both of these things are not "embarrassment of the state" as such. They are colossal challenges to extant power structures and markets. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00168-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00168-8 [1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=24 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=24 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40052611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40052611
- chrisjj 2y agoYes but I cannot imagine either of these things are a bigger concern to the Govt. as covering up the true extent of the security issue. Not least because of the number of legal actions against the PO that this truth might enable. Could seal PO's fate as a toxic asset.
- chrisjj 2y ago> allow the government to avoid scrutiny of the evidence they failed to disclose Failure was by PO not Govt. But otherwise yes I agree. How long can this fact remain hidden, I wonder.