3 ms·

> It merely says you can't just say "computer got it wrong" and expect the other side to prove otherwise. According to the standard legal practice of innocent-

• rich_sasha 2y ago
  Right - it unquestionably is a custom rule. But it's not as broad as it is made out, not is it the fundamental problem here. The Post Office knew the system is faulty, hid that evidence and lied in court under oath about it. As to lack of evidence... It's not so simple. A popular UK insurance hack is when people overtake you on a motorway and slam the brakes, to make a claim on your insurance. Unless you present evidence this was done to you, like dashcam footage, you are presumed to be responsible. You don't need the scammer to prove they didn't crash into you. I'm sure the US has similar mechanisms, where fault is presumed, like if a car hits a pedestrian. This is similar. Computer systems are presumed to be correct unless evidence is presented. Maybe it's a bad rule, but it's not the horrendous dystopian catastrophe it is declared to be everywhere.
• xxpor 2y ago
  Without accepting this specific rule, that's not how any rules of evidence work in any (common law) court. There needs to be a point where things are presumed true to maintain a working court system. Imagine if e.g. you had to prove the _concept_ of DNA testing every time it was used. In the US, see for example the debate between the Frye standard vs. the Daubert standard.