🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw%mcnc.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA
 and was received on Fri Aug  1 13:33:20 1986
 
> munnari!cidam.rmit.oz!mg (Mike A. Gigante)

> Unless it has been *proven* that the machine/program is
> *completely error free*, I think that a miscarriage of justice is a definate
> possibility if a machine/program is used as incriminating evidence.

This is hardly unique to computerized evidence.  A miscarriage of
justice is possible with or without a computer.  The only
computer-unique element here (I think) is the more-or-less blind trust
that many people have in "computer results".  There is no legal solution
to this... people must simply learn what to expect about the
fallibility of computers.

> Honestly, would like like someone else's code to decide your fate?

Ay dunno.  Would *you* like someone else's (say) logical analysis of
your whereabouts at the time of the crime to decide your fate?  What if
the logic were faulty, but very complicated so that the fault was not
apparent?  Again, this problem is not at all unique to computers.

> Taken to it's extreme, you could have duelling debug sessions in a court
> room :-) (Hah! but I just fixed that bug 2 minutes ago!)

Yes indeed.  Just as we now have disputes over the expertise of this or
that expert witness.


I think that at base, this problem is just another statement of the
"blind trust in computers" problem.  Yes, some people are naive about
how much trust to place in "computer results".  Yes, we can come up with
hundreds of scenarios where this is a danger or detriment to society.
But the interesting thing is how to combat it, not to give zillions of
examples of it, right?
--
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw