Most active commenters
  • nwienert(4)
  • KingOfCoders(3)

←back to thread

630 points xbryanx | 21 comments | | HN request time: 3.402s | source | bottom
Show context
mike_hearn ◴[] No.44531351[source]
To the NY Times: please don't say they died by suicide. The passive voice makes it sound like some act of God, something regrettable but unavoidable that just somehow happened. It's important not to sugarcoat what happened: the postmasters killed themselves because the British state was imprisoning them for crimes they didn't commit, based on evidence from a buggy financial accounting system. Don't blur the details of what happened by making it sound like a natural disaster.

Horizon is the case that should replace Therac-25 as a study in what can go wrong if software developers screw up. Therac-25 injured/killed six people, Horizon has ruined hundreds of lives and ended dozens. And the horrifying thing is, Horizon wasn't something anyone would have previously identified as safety-critical software. It was just an ordinary point-of-sale and accounting system. The suicides weren't directly caused by the software, but from an out of control justice and social system in which people blindly believed in public institutions that were actually engaged in a massive deep state cover-up.

It is reasonable to blame the suicides on the legal and political system that allowed the Post Office to act in that way, and which put such low quality people in charge. Perhaps also on the software engineer who testified repeatedly under oath that the system worked fine, even as the bug tracker filled up with cases where it didn't. But this is HN, so from a software engineering perspective what can be learned?

Some glitches were of their time and wouldn't occur these days, e.g. malfunctions in resistive touch screens that caused random clicks on POS screens to occur overnight. But most were bugs due to loss of transactionality or lack of proper auditing controls. Think message replays lacking proper idempotency, things like that. Transactions were logged that never really occurred, and when the cash was counted some appeared to be missing, so the Post Office accused the postmasters of stealing from the business. They hadn't done so, but this took place over decades, and decades ago people had more faith in institutions than they do now. And these post offices were often in small villages where the post office was the center of the community, so the false allegations against postmasters were devastating to their social and business lives.

Put simply - check your transactions! And make sure developers can't rewrite databases in prod.

replies(19): >>44531419 #>>44531429 #>>44531441 #>>44531521 #>>44531528 #>>44531663 #>>44531829 #>>44531922 #>>44531950 #>>44531986 #>>44531999 #>>44532057 #>>44532232 #>>44532622 #>>44532757 #>>44532759 #>>44533432 #>>44535081 #>>44538524 #
1. KingOfCoders ◴[] No.44532232[source]
There is no "deep state", just the state. Calling things "the deep state" tries to partition the state in two parts, a good one and a bad one.

There is also no "deep Amazon" or "deep Meta". Amazon is Amazon, Meta is Meta and the state is the state. People working for or representing the state have their own agenda, have their cliques, have their CYA like people everywhere else. And the state as an organization prioritizes survival and self defense above all other goals it might have.

replies(6): >>44532285 #>>44532348 #>>44532365 #>>44532902 #>>44532923 #>>44535458 #
2. mike_hearn ◴[] No.44532285[source]
Fair. I use the term to refer to the parts of the state that are somehow buried deep, beyond most people's awareness. In this case the problems started with a government contractor, and were then covered up by people inside the post office. It wasn't a top-down conspiracy of politicians, or of civil servants following their orders.
3. pjc50 ◴[] No.44532348[source]
Indeed. "Deep" is a weasel word. "State" is all the operations of governance which don't change when the government changes.

However, the state is not a monolith. It's an organization of all sorts of sub-organizations run by individuals with their own agendas. They have names, faces, and honors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67925304

(The honors systems is deeply problematic because about half of them are handed out to insiders for complicity in god knows what and the other half are handed out to celebrities as cover for the first half)

4. tw04 ◴[] No.44532365[source]
I'm not sure that's really fair. Within any organization there are subgroups. For instance there was an entire branch of AT&T that was dedicated to illegally spying on Americans for the NSA.

Most employees of AT&T had no idea it was even going on, so to lump every AT&T employee into the same batch of "you're bad because th company you work for was doing X" when they had no idea the company was doing X isn't really fair.

By the same vein, Stephen Miller trying to round up and cage innocent civilians just trying to live their life is a very different part of the government than Suzanne at NASA who's trying to better the future of mankind. To act as if there's no distinguishing between the two is just silly.

Whether you have an issue with the specific term "deep state" I'll leave be. But please don't try to oversimplify large organizations. The higher up the chain the more responsibility you can place for what the organization as a whole does, but the reverse isn't true when speaking outside of their specific area of ownership.

replies(1): >>44532957 #
5. exiguus ◴[] No.44532902[source]
Deep State makes kind of sense here, because the U.K. Post Office, had there own Law Enforcement. They can act like the state in several ways. I think the correct term is "Private prosecution". And as fare as I understand it, the U.K. Post Office was able to have there own judge.
replies(1): >>44534023 #
6. nwienert ◴[] No.44532923[source]
There’s incredible utility to the term.

It refers to people in the government with a lot of power and little public exposure, and perhaps some indication of using their power against the will of the general public, and yes there’s tons of these people, and it’s quite good to have the public generally worried about them.

American political history is littered with deep state plots that turned out to be true - Iraq war being a big recent one, the insurance policy FBI agents another.

replies(3): >>44533199 #>>44534048 #>>44539720 #
7. KingOfCoders ◴[] No.44532957[source]
Me: "have their cliques" You: "I'm not sure that's really fair. Within any organization there are subgroups."

"you're bad because th[e] company you work for was doing X"

Which I didn't write.

All the other parts about Suzanne, also not what I wrote.

"But please don't try to oversimplify large organizations."

I didn't, I feel your comment misrepresents what I've said.

"The higher up the chain the more responsibility you can place for what the organization as a whole does"

No. Al Capone killed no one himself. People did that for him. They share the responsibility. My boss made me do it is not an excuse.

8. tokai ◴[] No.44533199[source]
Iraq war was definitely not the work of any deep state, if you follow your definition. It was pushed by the president and his government, not faceless bureaucrats.
replies(1): >>44533375 #
9. nwienert ◴[] No.44533375{3}[source]
Certainly the pressure on them and the “intel” they saw on WMD was in part the work of the deep state, that the president was captured by them is sort of the point.
replies(2): >>44534024 #>>44534163 #
10. foldr ◴[] No.44534023[source]
No, the Post Office doesn't have its own "law enforcement" (if you mean something like a police force) or its own judges.

Any company has the right to bring a private prosecution under UK law, and this was the basis for the prosecutions in question. It just means that the company pays for some of the costs involved.

Whether or not private prosecutions should be allowed is certainly a legitimate topic of discussion. Let's not muddy the waters with misinformation about the Post Office having some kind of parallel police and courts system. It just doesn't.

replies(2): >>44535343 #>>44540103 #
11. esseph ◴[] No.44534024{4}[source]
You've got it backwards, at least in your description.

They went after the intel they wanted to find to justify their position. It didn't matter if it was real or true, it just needed to come from the intelligence apparatus.

12. mr_toad ◴[] No.44534048[source]
> There’s incredible utility to the term.

It’s a red flag, so there’s that.

13. michael1999 ◴[] No.44534163{4}[source]
That's completely backwards.

The CIA was very clear that there was nothing there, and the publicly appointed leadership (Rumsfeld, Feith, Cheney, etc) badgered them until they gave in and made some wishy-washy statement that Powell could pretend was real.

The war was led from the top - Sec Def and VP. That Bush was a moron and appointed liars to Sec Def and VP is on him. Cheney and Rumsfeld had a long history of making things up, going back to the 70s.

replies(1): >>44535228 #
14. nwienert ◴[] No.44535228{5}[source]
Source being that ridiculous fanfic Cheney movie? You’re even further off than me, even high level CIA was divided, along many other orgs that supported it. Where did Colin Powell get his evidence from? And the OSP?

Even if we agreed Iraq wasn’t a good example, it’s irrelevant to the point as I don’t think anyone actually thinks there aren’t powerful and largely behind the scenes figures - defense, lobbying, billionaires, and so on that aren’t actively steering the government away from the will of the people.

replies(1): >>44536869 #
15. exiguus ◴[] No.44535343{3}[source]
Thanks for setting the record straight. For me, as a non-Brit, the movie and the term “prosecution” helped me to misunderstand.
16. phendrenad2 ◴[] No.44535458[source]
When people say "deep state" they mean "invisible state". Not "bad state". If you realize this, suddenly you'll understand what people are talking about a lot more.
17. esseph ◴[] No.44536869{6}[source]
They knew there were no WMD.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-...

replies(1): >>44537029 #
18. nwienert ◴[] No.44537029{7}[source]
That shows some set of intelligence had some sources that told them they don’t, far from proof of anything let alone anything relevant here. And we know several high up yet largely unknown to the public defense ops claimed the opposite, ie, the deep state.
19. KingOfCoders ◴[] No.44539720[source]
"littered with deep state plots"

My argument is that these are not deep state plots, these are just plots. This are plots that states are doing. This is the state. This is an organization of millions of people. There is no deep state. The state is just like any other large organization.

Take for example the eBay stalking scandal.

"The eBay stalking scandal was a campaign conducted in 2019 by eBay and contractors. The scandal involved the aggressive stalking and harassment of two e-commerce bloggers, Ina and David Steiner, who wrote frequent commentary about eBay on their website EcommerceBytes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal

The CEO was not involved.

There is no "deep eBay", there is just eBay. We don't use the phrase "deep eBay" for a reason. And in the same way "deep State" does not make any sense.

20. lmm ◴[] No.44540103{3}[source]
> Any company has the right to bring a private prosecution under UK law

That's a simplification. The Post Office has a more privileged position due to its history; it has both formal access (e.g. to police computers) and informal deference from CPS that regular companies do not enjoy.

replies(1): >>44540440 #
21. foldr ◴[] No.44540440{4}[source]
That’s true, but it’s unclear the extent to which any of that was a factor. For example, how was the Post Office’s access to the PNC relevant here?

It may be that the CPS would have taken over these prosecutions and dropped them if the company in question had been, say, Tesco. But I don’t see how we can be sure of this.