>In May 2021, the British Computer Society, a professional body for those working in IT in the UK, called for reconsideration of courts' default presumption that computer data is correct.[283][284]
> Horizon was not subjected to a full, rigorous system audit.[285] In 2010, senior Post Office management took a decision that Horizon would not be subjected to an independent review because:[286]
>> If one were commissioned – any investigation would need to be disclosed in court. Although we would be doing the review to comfort others, any perception that POL doubts its own systems would mean that all criminal prosecutions would have to be stayed. It would also beg a question for the Court of Appeal over past prosecutions and imprisonments.
> No independent review was conducted until Second Sight was commissioned in 2012; their contract was terminated abruptly before it could formally report. The Post Office have not offered any evidence that their own internal auditors conducted an appropriate system audit.[285]
How on earth has any justice system made it this far into the 21st century with such a policy? And who on earth would ever buy the argument "we can't check if it's right or else people might start to question the infallibility"? The fraud that hid the full extent of the issue is of course inexcusable, but those who just accepted the situation without serious question were derelict in their duties.
jjk166•2mo ago
>In May 2021, the British Computer Society, a professional body for those working in IT in the UK, called for reconsideration of courts' default presumption that computer data is correct.[283][284]
> Horizon was not subjected to a full, rigorous system audit.[285] In 2010, senior Post Office management took a decision that Horizon would not be subjected to an independent review because:[286]
>> If one were commissioned – any investigation would need to be disclosed in court. Although we would be doing the review to comfort others, any perception that POL doubts its own systems would mean that all criminal prosecutions would have to be stayed. It would also beg a question for the Court of Appeal over past prosecutions and imprisonments.
> No independent review was conducted until Second Sight was commissioned in 2012; their contract was terminated abruptly before it could formally report. The Post Office have not offered any evidence that their own internal auditors conducted an appropriate system audit.[285]
How on earth has any justice system made it this far into the 21st century with such a policy? And who on earth would ever buy the argument "we can't check if it's right or else people might start to question the infallibility"? The fraud that hid the full extent of the issue is of course inexcusable, but those who just accepted the situation without serious question were derelict in their duties.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal