4 ms·

> About 700 subpostmasters were prosecuted for fraud and theft and over a hundred sent to prison And at least four purportedly related to these prosecutions co

> About 700 subpostmasters were prosecuted for fraud and theft and over a hundred sent to prison And at least four purportedly related to these prosecutions committed suicide[1]. Perhaps most alarmingly: prior to 1999, the burden of proof for proving that the Horizon system was working correctly would have fallen to the Post Office (as the prosecutor in these instances) and Fujitsu (as the developer). That rule was changed to presume that the computer system worked correctly unless there was explicit evidence to the contrary[2][3]. A very high barrier for a non-technical person to prove, especially in an extremely complex system. It worries me how many people put unchecked faith into the systems that, now more-or-less, rule our lives whether we like it or not. It worries me even more that a lot of computer programmers, systems engineers, et al, don't understand how their code affects others in bad and unintended ways, and why testing matters so much. Uncle Bob, as divisive as he is, hits this nail on the head with a depleted uranium sledgehammer[4] (19:47-24:33). [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/07/what-is-the-post-office-horizon-it-scandal-all-about https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/07/what-is-the... [2] https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252501510/BCS-demands-reform-to-rules-on-computer-evidence-following-Post-Office-Horizon-scandal-revelations https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252501510/BCS-demands-re... [3] https://www.ukauthority.com/articles/bcs-calls-for-change-in-law-on-computer-evidence/ https://www.ukauthority.com/articles/bcs-calls-for-change-in... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EmboKQH8lM&t=1187s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EmboKQH8lM&t=1187s

croes 2y ago
Did they ask programmer if there could be a flaw in the system? I can't think of many programmers who would deny the possibility.
- gravescale 2y ago
  I imagine Fujitsu did everything they could to put only loyal management on the stand. They did call the Fujitsu chief architect, who is now under investigation for perjury for his efforts (and I also imagine Fujitsu are less going to try to throw him under the bus and more have a tungsten bus dropped on him from orbit)
- misswaterfairy 2y ago
  They did, and it appears that a coverup was underway[1][2]. I need to note that I am not asserting who was pushing to cover up Horizon's issues, that's a matter for the courts and the Inquiry. > Mr Jenkins, Fujitsu's former chief IT architect, is currently being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for potential perjury, the BBC understands. > Mr Jenkins' report and an accompanying memo provide the clearest evidence yet that as early as autumn 2010 the Post Office and Fujitsu, which built the Horizon IT system, were aware of details about the software which could cast doubt on prosecutions, and were keeping them hidden. > The memo, which summarised a series of meetings about the report, said that if the bug was widely known, it could cause a "loss of confidence in the Horizon system", provide branches with "ammunition to blame Horizon for future discrepancies" and have "potential impact upon ongoing legal cases". > Mr Jenkins' testimony was also later used in the prosecution of many other sub-postmasters, where details of his report on the bug were again not disclosed. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68857142 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68857142 [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68606121 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68606121
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  They did. In fact the Post Office knew there were bugs because of course there was a bug database that tracked them, along with manual interventions to fix the ledger that SPMs were unaware of. Part of why this scandal was able to go so far is that the management of the Post Office routinely lied to the courts under oath and claimed no bugs were known, etc. They also presented expert witnesses (programmers) from Fujitsu who also claimed there were no problems and the discrepancies must be caused by fraud, whilst also knowing that it wasn't true. Absolutely everything about this case is shocking and shows really evil behavior at every level. Evil isn't a word I ever use lightly, but Paula Vennells and her crew knew full well they were sending innocent people to prison and seem to have just doubled down at every opportunity. A good way to summarize the mundane evil of Vennells' character: when BBC One broadcast a news item about the scandal way back in 2014, she emailed the chair of the Post Office Alice Perkins to say it was just "hype and human interest" and that she was "more bored than outraged" by the whole affair. She then kept on imprisoning innocent people and lying about it. Unfortunately one reason this case is neuralgic is that a big part of the blame lies with the toxic legacy of diversity hiring and the push for female CEOs at any cost. Something that came out recently is that the government and Post Office both knew that Vennells was completely unsuited to lead it way back in 2014 [1], with people saying she lacked knowledge had trouble working with people who challenged her, but: The document also said it would be “more difficult” to remove Vennells due to the impending general election, which took place in 2015. “Ministers would be conscious of the political implications,” it said. What political implications and which ministers? At the time the BBC were giving fawning bios that explicitly stressed in the headline that Vennells is a woman [2]. She was the responsibility of Jo Swinson, who was Postal Minister. Vennells was lying to Swinson too [3], so she isn't entirely to blame, but Swinson in turn is a feminist who felt it was very important to have more women in business and politics. She's written a book called "Equal Power" on gender equality, for example. Vennells was a high profile female CEO; firing her for mere incompetence was clearly not something civil servants thought Swinson would be willing to do. Instead Vennells was rewarded and made excuses for. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/06/officials-considered-sacking-paula-vennells-as-post-office-boss-in-2014 https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/06/off... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-25965476 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-25965476 [3] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-post-office-boss-paula-32548181 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-post-office-boss-p...
- Rapzid 2y ago
  And Jonathan Blow thinks software development hasn't improved in 30 years. We tend to fix bugs these days instead of locking up the impacted users.

croes 2y ago

Did they ask programmer if there could be a flaw in the system? I can't think of many programmers who would deny the possibility.

gravescale 2y ago
I imagine Fujitsu did everything they could to put only loyal management on the stand. They did call the Fujitsu chief architect, who is now under investigation for perjury for his efforts (and I also imagine Fujitsu are less going to try to throw him under the bus and more have a tungsten bus dropped on him from orbit)
misswaterfairy 2y ago
They did, and it appears that a coverup was underway[1][2]. I need to note that I am not asserting who was pushing to cover up Horizon's issues, that's a matter for the courts and the Inquiry. > Mr Jenkins, Fujitsu's former chief IT architect, is currently being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for potential perjury, the BBC understands. > Mr Jenkins' report and an accompanying memo provide the clearest evidence yet that as early as autumn 2010 the Post Office and Fujitsu, which built the Horizon IT system, were aware of details about the software which could cast doubt on prosecutions, and were keeping them hidden. > The memo, which summarised a series of meetings about the report, said that if the bug was widely known, it could cause a "loss of confidence in the Horizon system", provide branches with "ammunition to blame Horizon for future discrepancies" and have "potential impact upon ongoing legal cases". > Mr Jenkins' testimony was also later used in the prosecution of many other sub-postmasters, where details of his report on the bug were again not disclosed. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68857142 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68857142 [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68606121 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68606121
mike_hearn 2y ago
They did. In fact the Post Office knew there were bugs because of course there was a bug database that tracked them, along with manual interventions to fix the ledger that SPMs were unaware of. Part of why this scandal was able to go so far is that the management of the Post Office routinely lied to the courts under oath and claimed no bugs were known, etc. They also presented expert witnesses (programmers) from Fujitsu who also claimed there were no problems and the discrepancies must be caused by fraud, whilst also knowing that it wasn't true. Absolutely everything about this case is shocking and shows really evil behavior at every level. Evil isn't a word I ever use lightly, but Paula Vennells and her crew knew full well they were sending innocent people to prison and seem to have just doubled down at every opportunity. A good way to summarize the mundane evil of Vennells' character: when BBC One broadcast a news item about the scandal way back in 2014, she emailed the chair of the Post Office Alice Perkins to say it was just "hype and human interest" and that she was "more bored than outraged" by the whole affair. She then kept on imprisoning innocent people and lying about it. Unfortunately one reason this case is neuralgic is that a big part of the blame lies with the toxic legacy of diversity hiring and the push for female CEOs at any cost. Something that came out recently is that the government and Post Office both knew that Vennells was completely unsuited to lead it way back in 2014 [1], with people saying she lacked knowledge had trouble working with people who challenged her, but: The document also said it would be “more difficult” to remove Vennells due to the impending general election, which took place in 2015. “Ministers would be conscious of the political implications,” it said. What political implications and which ministers? At the time the BBC were giving fawning bios that explicitly stressed in the headline that Vennells is a woman [2]. She was the responsibility of Jo Swinson, who was Postal Minister. Vennells was lying to Swinson too [3], so she isn't entirely to blame, but Swinson in turn is a feminist who felt it was very important to have more women in business and politics. She's written a book called "Equal Power" on gender equality, for example. Vennells was a high profile female CEO; firing her for mere incompetence was clearly not something civil servants thought Swinson would be willing to do. Instead Vennells was rewarded and made excuses for. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/06/officials-considered-sacking-paula-vennells-as-post-office-boss-in-2014 https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/06/off... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-25965476 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-25965476 [3] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-post-office-boss-paula-32548181 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-post-office-boss-p...
Rapzid 2y ago
And Jonathan Blow thinks software development hasn't improved in 30 years. We tend to fix bugs these days instead of locking up the impacted users.