Comment by noisy_boy

6 days ago

> 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?

10 comments

noisy_boy

Reply
michael1999  6 days ago

It's incremental, and goes back to things like clocks.

Imagine a witness says "I saw him go into the bank at 11:20. I know the time because I looked up at the clock tower, and it said 11:20".

Defence argues "The clock must have been wrong. My client was at lunch with his wife by 11:15".

Clocks are simple enough that we can presume them to correct, unless you can present evidence that they are unreliable.

This presumption was extended to ever-more complicated machines over the years. And then (fatally) this presumption was extended to the rise of PROGRAMMABLE computers. It is the programmability of computers that makes them unreliable. The actual computer hardware rarely makes an error that isn't obvious as an error.

The distinction of software and hardware is a relatively recent concept for something as old as common law.

whycome  6 days ago

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.

  • BobaFloutist  6 days ago

    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.

  • SoftTalker  6 days ago

    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.

    • worik  6 days ago

      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