←back to thread

624 points xbryanx | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.41s | 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 #
1. cedws ◴[] No.44533247[source]
I was not aware of this. Wow.

I hope they're taking a hard look at past cases where they've done this.

replies(1): >>44533316 #
2. masfuerte ◴[] No.44533316[source]
No chance. The article concludes with the depressing statement that the government has no plans to reform the law, so the injustices will continue. They certainly won't be spending money on digging up old injustices.