4 ms·

Well not really, no one should be committing suicide due to a buggy system. If you know the details of the case it was widespread but the post office decided to

Well not really, no one should be committing suicide due to a buggy system. If you know the details of the case it was widespread but the post office decided to gaslight everyone and put people in debt and prison. That’s what caused this, the bugs were just a catalyst for shitty humans to do shitty things

mrkramer 1y ago
Yea management failed but wouldn't the most logical thing be to call in computer forensics experts and quality test the software, reverse engineering it and try to catch the bugs. This wasn't the classic case of financial fraud, this was all about faulty software.
- voxic11 1y ago
  The Post Office management knew about the bugs but didn't want to take the blame for the accounting issues they caused (since it was management that purchased and approved the software some blame would have fallen on them).
  - mrkramer 1y ago
    Fujitsu was all to blame, after all they created and maintained the software. It just blows my mind why would courts pursue the individuals and not the creator of the software, when they realized that this mess was widespread and not isolated.
    - blibble 1y ago
      because UK law says (said?) the computer can't be wrong and the post office management had no interest in proving otherwise they should be going after the management
      - foldr 1y ago
        UK law said that there was a presumption that computer systems were working correctly unless there was evidence to the contrary. That’s not inherently nuts. It makes roughly as much sense as assuming that, say, a dishwasher is in working order unless there’s evidence to the contrary. This presumption in and of itself could just as well aid a person’s defense as hinder it (e.g. if they have an alibi based on computer records). In this case it should have been very easy to provide evidence to override the presumption that the Horizon system was working correctly. That this didn’t happen seems to have resulted from a combination of bad lawyering and shameless mendacity on the part of Fujitsu and the Post Office. Don’t get me wrong — the whole thing is a giant scandal. I’m just not sure if this particular presumption of UK law is the appropriate scapegoat.
        mrkramer 1y ago
        >UK law said that there was a presumption that computer systems were working correctly unless there was evidence to the contrary. Defense had to prove that only one Horizon/Fujitsu accounting software was buggy and the whole prosecution falls apart e.g. If John's Horizon/Fujitsu accounting software has bugs then Peter's Horizon/Fujitsu accounting software most probably has bugs too.
        foldr 1y ago
        In principle, yes. It may be that the bar was set too high and that there needs to be some clarification of exactly what the presumption means. I’d argue that some kind of weak presumption along these lines clearly makes sense and is probably universal across legal systems. For example, suppose the police find that X has an incriminating email from Y after searching X’s laptop. Are they required to prove that GMail doesn’t have a bug causing it to corrupt email contents or send emails to the wrong recipients? Presumably not.
        mike_hearn 1y ago
        IIRC one issue was that every time someone advanced the theory something was wrong with Horizon, the Post Office kept claiming that nobody else was experiencing any issues. They also lied under oath, claiming no bugs that could cause such situations were known. Given this most the of defence lawyers abandoned that line of inquiry (they were nothing special, seeing as village postmasters aren't rich).
- noisy_boy 1y ago
  > Yea management failed but wouldn't the most logical thing be to call in computer forensics experts Yea and who is responsible for engaging them?
  - mrkramer 1y ago
    I meant courts should've called in multiple expert witnesses and even computer forensics companies. This case looks like government or in this case courts colluded with British Post Office.
    - mr_toad 1y ago
      > I meant courts should've called in multiple expert witnesses and even computer forensics companies. UK courts don’t (can’t) do that, that’s up to the plaintiffs or defendants.

mrkramer 1y ago

Yea management failed but wouldn't the most logical thing be to call in computer forensics experts and quality test the software, reverse engineering it and try to catch the bugs. This wasn't the classic case of financial fraud, this was all about faulty software.

voxic11 1y ago
The Post Office management knew about the bugs but didn't want to take the blame for the accounting issues they caused (since it was management that purchased and approved the software some blame would have fallen on them).
- mrkramer 1y ago
  Fujitsu was all to blame, after all they created and maintained the software. It just blows my mind why would courts pursue the individuals and not the creator of the software, when they realized that this mess was widespread and not isolated.
  - blibble 1y ago
    because UK law says (said?) the computer can't be wrong and the post office management had no interest in proving otherwise they should be going after the management
    - foldr 1y ago
      UK law said that there was a presumption that computer systems were working correctly unless there was evidence to the contrary. That’s not inherently nuts. It makes roughly as much sense as assuming that, say, a dishwasher is in working order unless there’s evidence to the contrary. This presumption in and of itself could just as well aid a person’s defense as hinder it (e.g. if they have an alibi based on computer records). In this case it should have been very easy to provide evidence to override the presumption that the Horizon system was working correctly. That this didn’t happen seems to have resulted from a combination of bad lawyering and shameless mendacity on the part of Fujitsu and the Post Office. Don’t get me wrong — the whole thing is a giant scandal. I’m just not sure if this particular presumption of UK law is the appropriate scapegoat.
      - mrkramer 1y ago
        >UK law said that there was a presumption that computer systems were working correctly unless there was evidence to the contrary. Defense had to prove that only one Horizon/Fujitsu accounting software was buggy and the whole prosecution falls apart e.g. If John's Horizon/Fujitsu accounting software has bugs then Peter's Horizon/Fujitsu accounting software most probably has bugs too.
        foldr 1y ago
        In principle, yes. It may be that the bar was set too high and that there needs to be some clarification of exactly what the presumption means. I’d argue that some kind of weak presumption along these lines clearly makes sense and is probably universal across legal systems. For example, suppose the police find that X has an incriminating email from Y after searching X’s laptop. Are they required to prove that GMail doesn’t have a bug causing it to corrupt email contents or send emails to the wrong recipients? Presumably not.
        mike_hearn 1y ago
        IIRC one issue was that every time someone advanced the theory something was wrong with Horizon, the Post Office kept claiming that nobody else was experiencing any issues. They also lied under oath, claiming no bugs that could cause such situations were known. Given this most the of defence lawyers abandoned that line of inquiry (they were nothing special, seeing as village postmasters aren't rich).
noisy_boy 1y ago
> Yea management failed but wouldn't the most logical thing be to call in computer forensics experts Yea and who is responsible for engaging them?
- mrkramer 1y ago
  I meant courts should've called in multiple expert witnesses and even computer forensics companies. This case looks like government or in this case courts colluded with British Post Office.
  - mr_toad 1y ago
    > I meant courts should've called in multiple expert witnesses and even computer forensics companies. UK courts don’t (can’t) do that, that’s up to the plaintiffs or defendants.