> In England and Wales, courts consider computers, as a matter of law, to have been working correctly unless there is evidence to the contrary. Therefore, evidence produced by computers is treated as reliable unless other evidence suggests otherwise. This way of handling evidence is known as a ‘rebuttable presumption’. A court will treat a computer as if it is working perfectly unless someone can show why that is not the case.
> This presumption poses a challenge to those who dispute evidence produced by a computer system. Frequently the challenge is insurmountable, particularly where a substantial institution operates the system.
> The Post Office Horizon scandal clearly exposes the problem and the harm that may result. From 1999, the Post Office prosecuted hundreds of postmasters and Post Office employees for theft and fraud based on evidence produced by the Horizon computer system showing shortfalls in their branch accounts. In those prosecutions, the Post Office relied on the presumption that computers were operating correctly.
> Hundreds of postmasters and others were convicted, sentenced to terms of imprisonment, fined, or had their property confiscated. This clearly demonstrated that the Law Commission’s assertion that ‘such a regime would work fairly’ was flawed.
I was recently reading Player Piano (1952) by Vonnegut, in it he imagines a future controlled by computers of the time. In several places in the story, humans are questioning the conclusions drawn by the computers, so they replace all the vacuum tubes and run the query again to make sure. Can you imagine?!?
edit: What reminded me is one of the situations in the book is the judging of a court case.
