←back to thread

630 points xbryanx | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.545s | source
Show context
cedws ◴[] No.44531505[source]
The failing is as much with the court as it is with Fujitsu. Why did they blindly accept Horizon’s data as evidence? What if the computer said the Queen stole all the money and ran off to Barbados, would they have thrown her in jail? Why was the output of a black box, which may as well have been a notebook Fujitsu could have written anything they wanted into, treated as gospel?
replies(2): >>44531696 #>>44534741 #
rwmj ◴[] No.44531696[source]
The actual answer to this is terrible. Courts had to trust the computer was correct. There was a common law presumption that a computer was operating correctly unless there is evidence to the contrary (and getting that evidence is basically impossible for the individuals being charged who were post office workers, not computer experts, and the source code was a trade secret).

This might change, partly in response to this case: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/use-of-evid...

Quite interesting article about this: https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/the-presumption-t...

replies(6): >>44531773 #>>44531863 #>>44531870 #>>44533179 #>>44533247 #>>44534675 #
noisy_boy ◴[] No.44531863[source]
> The actual answer to this is terrible. Courts had to trust the computer was correct. There was a common law presumption that a computer was operating correctly unless there is evidence to the contrary

That is just mind bogglingly stupid - who the hell are the idiots who wrote a law like that? Any of them wrote a line of code in their life?

replies(3): >>44532655 #>>44533026 #>>44534069 #
1. whycome ◴[] No.44532655[source]
Isn’t it a similar case in the USA where intoxication breath test computers are similarly obscured from scrutiny? People have argued that they have a right to “face their accuser” and see the source code only to have that request denied. So, black box.
replies(2): >>44533644 #>>44533721 #
2. BobaFloutist ◴[] No.44533644[source]
Breathalyzers aren't typically considered sufficient evidence in of themselves to convict (or exonerate), iirc many PDs have a policy of treating a breathalyzer hit as probable cause more than anything and then either they throw you in the drunk tank if you don't demand a blood test to verify, or, if they want to actually prosecute you, they get a warrant for a blood test.
3. SoftTalker ◴[] No.44533721[source]
AIUI breath test only establishes probable cause. If you fail a breath test you are taken for a blood draw.

Breath test results are routinely challenged (sometimes successfully) by demanding records showing that the device has been tested and calibrated according to the required schedule.

replies(1): >>44537083 #
4. worik ◴[] No.44537083[source]
In my country (Aotearoa) the breath tests are "strict viability ", so proof

You can demand a blood test, but you have to know. Most people do not know