> the computer system was incorrect There's a little more to it. Most of the comments here are focusing on "correctness". And yes, the amendments to section 69

> the computer system was incorrect There's a little more to it. Most of the comments here are focusing on "correctness". And yes, the amendments to section 69 do something towards tempering its ridiculous and dangerous "presumptions". But the (UK Post-Office) story is that the Horizon system had back-doors in it. Fujitsu denied this. "Corrections" were made to systems without operator knowledge - to fix actual errors caused by a terrible database sync script full of race-hazards, faulty locks and duplicated state. The cover-up began life as engineers trying to hide up technical mistakes. It escalated to senior executives trying to cover up financial and political mistakes. It ended with the Crown colluding in covering up judicial mistakes. It is an exemplar of hubris, pride and egotsim resting on a refusal to give up a religious belief in technology. Were it not for the courage of a few (including judges and MPs) they would have gotten away with it (if it weren't for those meddling kids) The case stands as an important landmark that you cannot "hide behind" technology as a means for abuse and injustice. The amendments are welcome but insufficient. They open up a good opportunity for cybersecurity people to work with lawyers now. There are two outstanding problems: Proprietary code. If you cannot examine the system then the right to challenge it is meaningless. This requires changes to investigatory powers/discovery if anyone wants to use "technical correctness" as a base for argument. Malicious function. While the discussion revolves around correctness it is incomplete. Many systems (perhaps not the Horizon system) are not faulty, they work perfectly well to deceive, manipulate and swindle. I'd still push for a complete reversal of presumption [0]. Where software is part of a legal dispute it should "take the stand" as its own witness, in that formal proofs of correctness (a very VERY high bar in software engineering) need to be brought in front of the court. Otherwise the reasonable presumption is that an error or hidden malicious coding "cannot be ruled out". [0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=23 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=23 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=24 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=24