Convicted Post Office workers have names cleared(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Convicted Post Office workers have names cleared
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357
190 comments
Does anyone know how the courts rendered these verdicts?
Courts are supposed to be a level of protection.
If they can't show motivation, point to actual dates and quantities of money stolen, a bank account or purchase it showed up in, all the usual standards of evidence to make an actual criminal case...
...how does this progress from an accusation to beyond reasonable doubt?
Software is buggy. Since when does a court accept the uncorroborated report of software, without any other corroborating evidence, and sentence someone?
This boggles my mind, and seems to go against fundamental legal principles.
Is this going to result in some sort of legal reform? The root cause here isn't a software bug, it's a legal system bug.
Courts are supposed to be a level of protection.
If they can't show motivation, point to actual dates and quantities of money stolen, a bank account or purchase it showed up in, all the usual standards of evidence to make an actual criminal case...
...how does this progress from an accusation to beyond reasonable doubt?
Software is buggy. Since when does a court accept the uncorroborated report of software, without any other corroborating evidence, and sentence someone?
This boggles my mind, and seems to go against fundamental legal principles.
Is this going to result in some sort of legal reform? The root cause here isn't a software bug, it's a legal system bug.
In one case (Seema Misra) the judge asked the jury this in his/her summing up:
“There is no direct evidence of her taking any money... She adamantly denies stealing. There is no CCTV evidence. There are no fingerprints or marked bank notes or anything of that kind. There is no evidence of her accumulating cash anywhere else or spending large sums of money or paying off debts, no evidence about her bank accounts at all. Nothing incriminating was found when her home was searched...Do you accept the prosecution case that there is ample evidence before you to establish that Horizon is a tried and tested system in use at thousands of post offices for several years, fundamentally robust and reliable?”
The jury pronounced Seema Misra guilty.
There are many more details in this very comprehensive report by Private Eye: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i...
“There is no direct evidence of her taking any money... She adamantly denies stealing. There is no CCTV evidence. There are no fingerprints or marked bank notes or anything of that kind. There is no evidence of her accumulating cash anywhere else or spending large sums of money or paying off debts, no evidence about her bank accounts at all. Nothing incriminating was found when her home was searched...Do you accept the prosecution case that there is ample evidence before you to establish that Horizon is a tried and tested system in use at thousands of post offices for several years, fundamentally robust and reliable?”
The jury pronounced Seema Misra guilty.
There are many more details in this very comprehensive report by Private Eye: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i...
If a jury concluded that the defendant is guilty, I don't think judicial process reform would help. The fix would require at least public education. Reforming judicial process is hard, but fixing public perception seems way harder.
I've heard part of the problem is that the Post Office were allowed to conduct their own prosecutions. If the public prosecutor (Crown Prosecution Service) would have been involved, they would have asked the Post Office for any material which would have benefited the defence (this would be passed as disclosure). Because the Post Office were "victim" and prosecutor they never did this and the defence didn't get this material.
I have said in the past, only half in jest, that if I were guilty of a crime, I would want a jury trial, but if I were innocent, I would want to be tried by a judge, alone.
People think software is infallible, despite their direct evidence otherwise.
It's a "guilty until proven innocent" story, and I'm afraid there'll be many more in the future when the black-box software so prints out and whomever is in charge refuses to question the legitimacy of the claims for whatever reason they may have. This one time they made it out, countless more may not.
Thankfully stories like this help to reinforce positive outcomes in other similar trials.
Yes, you face an uphill battle if one forensic “expert” has decided you were guilty. It is actually quite similar to non-falsifiable pseudo-science forensic techniques that are used to impress jurys. Being innocent is not enough.
Will be even worse when the black-box in question is a deep neural network that can't show its workings out
This is a good example of why a jury trial is not always the best choice for a defendant. Juries are often overly impressed by authority figures, and assess the status of witnesses rather than the evidence itself.
What I find totally amazing about this whole scandal is that they ignored one of the most obvious and overwhelming examples of Ockham's razor I've ever seen.
On the one hand, you had the possibility of hundreds of sub-postmasters committing fraud in many different unrelated locations. There was zero evidence of them taking any money even after really deep scrutiny.
On the other hand, there was the possibility of software being buggy.
How could they happily conclude it was the first and not the second option is impossible to understand, and leaves me deeply worried about the UK legal system.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In order to support the existence of such a distributed fraud scheme, they should have brought convincing evidence. There was zero. Furthermore, they happily ignored an option that is several orders of magnitude more likely. Namely, that badly built software fails and management was deliberately hiding this to save their face.
On the one hand, you had the possibility of hundreds of sub-postmasters committing fraud in many different unrelated locations. There was zero evidence of them taking any money even after really deep scrutiny.
On the other hand, there was the possibility of software being buggy.
How could they happily conclude it was the first and not the second option is impossible to understand, and leaves me deeply worried about the UK legal system.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In order to support the existence of such a distributed fraud scheme, they should have brought convincing evidence. There was zero. Furthermore, they happily ignored an option that is several orders of magnitude more likely. Namely, that badly built software fails and management was deliberately hiding this to save their face.
> you had the possibility of hundreds of sub-postmasters committing fraud in many different unrelated locations
It is unfortunately fairly common. I have a friend who has been working for the USPS for over twenty years; way back when he got started, a co-worker was busted for pocketing cash from stamp sales. He was my roommate at the time, and was freaking out because she was trying to pin it on him, had to talk to the FBI, etc; the investigators figured out that she had been running the scam over 10+ years (something like $130k if I remember correctly (pocketing about 25 bucks a day, adds up!)). Retail scams just aren’t very unusual.
But you are correct in that evidence is, like, kind of important in a trial…
It is unfortunately fairly common. I have a friend who has been working for the USPS for over twenty years; way back when he got started, a co-worker was busted for pocketing cash from stamp sales. He was my roommate at the time, and was freaking out because she was trying to pin it on him, had to talk to the FBI, etc; the investigators figured out that she had been running the scam over 10+ years (something like $130k if I remember correctly (pocketing about 25 bucks a day, adds up!)). Retail scams just aren’t very unusual.
But you are correct in that evidence is, like, kind of important in a trial…
Yup. I knew someone who worked in the Ministry of Justice in France and he was ecstatic when they announced they would stop jury trials for criminal charges.
He said juries just aren't that great at the job. They're easily influenced by current events, susceptible to fallacies, etc. A lot more so than judges, according to my acquaintance (who was admittedly biased).
He said juries just aren't that great at the job. They're easily influenced by current events, susceptible to fallacies, etc. A lot more so than judges, according to my acquaintance (who was admittedly biased).
So they just use a single judge instead? That is (obviously) not always superior.
What about a panel of highly-trained rational-evidence evaluators? This would absolutely be superior to laypeople... Except for the corruption potential
What about a panel of highly-trained rational-evidence evaluators? This would absolutely be superior to laypeople... Except for the corruption potential
Perfect example of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
The government should not have brought these cases in the first place. George Orwell and the American founders were hyper critical of the paternalistic and controlling nature of the British aristocracy precisely because it leads to this kind of thing happening.
[deleted]
Nevertheless a trial by our peers is the best option we have in the long run. Think of alternatives, such as an algorithm, or a single person.
It’s not great, sure, but people from the same circumstances judging a peer is as good as it gets.
It’s not great, sure, but people from the same circumstances judging a peer is as good as it gets.
As a software person who has to write tests validating his systems all the time, who was also a juror in a trial that was a travesty... it strikes me as extremely odd that we don't run "mock trial tests" on this of all systems, where the jury, judge and lawyers don't know it's a test.
Let's just say I have SERIOUS doubts that this system satisfies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
If it's too difficult to fake evidence, we could randomize say 1% of the cases where the convicted is exonerated and given immunity and asked to anonymously report their actual guilt to a system in the interest of supporting a better legal system... yeah, this too would be difficult... hmmm... there must be a way to do this
Let's just say I have SERIOUS doubts that this system satisfies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
If it's too difficult to fake evidence, we could randomize say 1% of the cases where the convicted is exonerated and given immunity and asked to anonymously report their actual guilt to a system in the interest of supporting a better legal system... yeah, this too would be difficult... hmmm... there must be a way to do this
It's not as good as it gets at all. It's just a good fallback to have available for defendants should the rest of the system fail.
A single person (a judge) sounds better than a jury to me.
Personally I’d much rather be judged by 12 of my peers, where they must be unanimous in a conviction.
We've seen time and time again how juries become "unanimous" in their conviction of innocent people. So I'm not sure why you're putting so much weight into 12 people coming to an agreement in a closed room. It happens.
It's a great option but it should not be the only option, in my view.
I believe a US judge is capable of personally acquitting a defendant -- a jury is only needed to convict.
Is that not the case in Britain?
Is that not the case in Britain?
a judge can indeed overrule a jury verdict in favor of the defendent if he thinks the jury is clearly off it's rocker or that the prosecutor did not produce evidence that meets the standard of the law. Sometimes it's best to go with a bench trial based on situation. This might have been a good one, if the judge is known to have a solid understanding of technology vs the general public who barely know how to work a mouse and keyboard and have little training in deciding things base on a logical premise like "all software has bugs" as opposed to appeals to emotion.
This is called a "judgement notwithstanding the verdict" in US federal courts.
It's also one of the few instances where the _prosecution_ may appeal without violating double jeopardy protections.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_ver...
It's also one of the few instances where the _prosecution_ may appeal without violating double jeopardy protections.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_ver...
Private Eye is a national treasure. Britain would be much worse without it.
Never underestimate the lack of technical knowledge of judge, jury, Senate or Congress (I'm American, I can't speak to the British system - but it seems similar).
The answer to this question is that senior executives within the Post Office knew that Horizon had faults and deliberately withheld the information when prosecuting the sub-postmasters.
This is a fundamental breach of the prosecutor's duty to disclose any evidence that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case. This duty continues to exist after conviction so timing of knowledge is irrelevant.
The judgment is telling in that there are records in which Post Office officials made statements that minutes of meetings about faults in the Horizon system should not be taken so as to avoid having to disclose them in proceedings.
It is corporate failure on an unimaginable scale and three convicted individuals have died before having their convictions quashed.
Yesterday's judgment is long but very readable. I would anticipate further fallout and understand there may be a live police investigation on the basis that several individuals may have perverted the course of justice by either proceeding with prosecutions or omitting material evidence from testimony.
This is a fundamental breach of the prosecutor's duty to disclose any evidence that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case. This duty continues to exist after conviction so timing of knowledge is irrelevant.
The judgment is telling in that there are records in which Post Office officials made statements that minutes of meetings about faults in the Horizon system should not be taken so as to avoid having to disclose them in proceedings.
It is corporate failure on an unimaginable scale and three convicted individuals have died before having their convictions quashed.
Yesterday's judgment is long but very readable. I would anticipate further fallout and understand there may be a live police investigation on the basis that several individuals may have perverted the course of justice by either proceeding with prosecutions or omitting material evidence from testimony.
A big part of the problem is that the post office is not accountable as it's a government organization. A private company would be bankrupted by this, but the post office will just be bailed out by taxpayers.
At one point the Post Office's own barrister had to tell them in no uncertain terms that their attempts to prevent disclosure might amount to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (a pretty serious crime).
The Post Office might not be bankrupted, but I don't think this is going to go well for many of the people involved in the prosecution. The wheels of justice run slow but grind exceedingly fine etc.
The Post Office might not be bankrupted, but I don't think this is going to go well for many of the people involved in the prosecution. The wheels of justice run slow but grind exceedingly fine etc.
> it's a government organization
You're conveniently overlooking the role that Fujitsu, the software contractor, played.
The issue is concentration of power at large organizations, relative to the rights of individuals in society.
It is problematic when any organization accumulates too much power and runs roughshod over an individual citizen, whether that organization is government or private enterprise.
You're conveniently overlooking the role that Fujitsu, the software contractor, played.
The issue is concentration of power at large organizations, relative to the rights of individuals in society.
It is problematic when any organization accumulates too much power and runs roughshod over an individual citizen, whether that organization is government or private enterprise.
The UK post office was privatized in the middle of the period in question, so your assertion is half-true. Of course, even as a private entity it retains an aura of state authority which may have swayed perceptions of juries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail#Privatisation
No, this is not accurate. The Post Office was split from Royal Mail; Royal Mail was privatised while the Post Office remained (and still remains) in the public sector.
A good point, I misremembered the structure of the companies post-privatization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Ltd
Instead of viewing the problem as "bailing out", maybe it should be viewed at mitigated and fixed - because a system that people rely upon, one that needs to work, should be kept working - there are no better alternatives.
With private companies, everyone else is often left holding the bag - esp e.g. with mining and drilling companies. But with private corruption companies too - the bankruptcy of the company typically involves all of those being owed money taking a hit if not losing their money completely.
With private companies, everyone else is often left holding the bag - esp e.g. with mining and drilling companies. But with private corruption companies too - the bankruptcy of the company typically involves all of those being owed money taking a hit if not losing their money completely.
> owed money taking a hit if not losing their money completely.
You mention that as if it’s a bad thing? Wiping out bad investments is one of the major tenets of free market approaches. It’s the negative feedback loop for bad investments.
If something is unsustainable, it should go out of business and the investors should take a loss.
You mention that as if it’s a bad thing? Wiping out bad investments is one of the major tenets of free market approaches. It’s the negative feedback loop for bad investments.
If something is unsustainable, it should go out of business and the investors should take a loss.
For things that are private goods, it's fine to have a process of elimination - but only if that elimination doesn't leave even more public obligations to clean up (like pollution).
However the post office is a public good, so just letting it disappear is something that needs to be prefaced by an actual public discussion to do so.
However the post office is a public good, so just letting it disappear is something that needs to be prefaced by an actual public discussion to do so.
> just letting it disappear is something that needs to be prefaced by an actual public discussion to do so.
Not really. Budgeted government programs can’t continue to exist without money. They are default dying without top-ups.
Not really. Budgeted government programs can’t continue to exist without money. They are default dying without top-ups.
I agree with the grandparent. Externalities should be born by the company making the profits.
Example: imagine an oil company that can pump toxic fluids into the ground in order to cheaply extract lots of oil. Those toxic fluids render miles of ground as wasteland far into the future. The owners of the company should not be allowed to take the profits now, then allow the company to go bankrupt so they don't have to pay back and repair the damage they did.
The limited liability company should be eliminated as it encourages terrible behaviors.
Example: imagine an oil company that can pump toxic fluids into the ground in order to cheaply extract lots of oil. Those toxic fluids render miles of ground as wasteland far into the future. The owners of the company should not be allowed to take the profits now, then allow the company to go bankrupt so they don't have to pay back and repair the damage they did.
The limited liability company should be eliminated as it encourages terrible behaviors.
> I agree with the grandparent. Externalities should be born by the company making the profits.
You ignored what I wrote. Wiping out investors is making externalities born by the company.
My statement has nothing to do with externalities. It’s about investors being on the hook a good thing.
The grandparent implied that poor investors lose their money on one hand and complain about externalities going to public on the other, which makes no sense. Holding companies, and subsequently shareholders, accountable for all of the company liabilities is the capitalist way.
You ignored what I wrote. Wiping out investors is making externalities born by the company.
My statement has nothing to do with externalities. It’s about investors being on the hook a good thing.
The grandparent implied that poor investors lose their money on one hand and complain about externalities going to public on the other, which makes no sense. Holding companies, and subsequently shareholders, accountable for all of the company liabilities is the capitalist way.
Well, then reality is a direct contradiction of your point of view. The Post Office is actually a private company, and yet here we are...
I don't think that is the answer to the question.
The OP asked, "doesn't there need to be evidence beyond just 'a computer said so'?".
You said the answer is that "the computer said so" and then the operator of the computer said "I agree with the computer".
In my mind, the question still remains. Isn't there any requirement to show where the money went, what account it went into, give dates and details about how they stole the money, etc?
Of course, hiding the known bugs in the software is a scandal and worth talking about, but it doesn't answer the original question I think.
The OP asked, "doesn't there need to be evidence beyond just 'a computer said so'?".
You said the answer is that "the computer said so" and then the operator of the computer said "I agree with the computer".
In my mind, the question still remains. Isn't there any requirement to show where the money went, what account it went into, give dates and details about how they stole the money, etc?
Of course, hiding the known bugs in the software is a scandal and worth talking about, but it doesn't answer the original question I think.
What kind of standard of proof do you expect, beyond "convincing to a jury"?
Money is just a number in a database somewhere, so you’re also advocating for ‘the computer said so’, for a slightly different set of computers.
I'm not advocating for anything. Just saying that "Why isn't there a higher legal standard for proof?" answered with "The Post Office management knew about the bugs." isn't a satisfying question/answer exchange.
> This is a fundamental breach of the prosecutor's duty to disclose any evidence that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case
So this is basically saying "the system is only as just as the integrity of the persons involved with the case when factoring in perverse incentives"
So this is basically saying "the system is only as just as the integrity of the persons involved with the case when factoring in perverse incentives"
I don't know the full details of how the judges operated during the prosecutions, but one of the bizarre details is that the post office has the oldest prosecution and investigation team in the world, predating the police force, dating back to highwaymen robbing postal services on horseback. In other words, the post office executives seem to have made a policy decision around these financial discrepancies, the post office managers gathered evidence on their behalf under the guise of helping their employees, and the post office prosecution team prosecuted them in court. Very little unbiased external opinion was brought in. Even the police seemed to have decided early on that they didn't have jurisdiction in the post office for the above reasons. Its an extremely bizarre detail that, as a UK resident, I had no idea about until these recent revelations.
> Software is buggy. Since when does a court accept the uncorroborated report of software, without any other corroborating evidence, and sentence someone?
Former PwC Auditor here , the court accepts evidence from independent IT Auditing company who are qualified to perform an audit on the system and asses the reliability of the system or from the vendor himself who provide proofs that the system he sells is reliable ( testing , certifications etc..)
If you're developer you'll probably agree with me that this approach is of course a "non-sense" because no software was ever created "bug-free" or can be really defined as "reliable".
Yet , that's how the court works : "The vendor says the software has no bugs , thus the court is rejecting the objection of buggy software. The court found you guilty"
I'm sadden by this news because it depicts how much the mixture of "bad software" and "corporate/enterprise software" are tied together and how much it can impact people on their daily life with irreversible impact.
Former PwC Auditor here , the court accepts evidence from independent IT Auditing company who are qualified to perform an audit on the system and asses the reliability of the system or from the vendor himself who provide proofs that the system he sells is reliable ( testing , certifications etc..)
If you're developer you'll probably agree with me that this approach is of course a "non-sense" because no software was ever created "bug-free" or can be really defined as "reliable".
Yet , that's how the court works : "The vendor says the software has no bugs , thus the court is rejecting the objection of buggy software. The court found you guilty"
I'm sadden by this news because it depicts how much the mixture of "bad software" and "corporate/enterprise software" are tied together and how much it can impact people on their daily life with irreversible impact.
What kind of auditor if you don't mind me asking?
And, do you hate Lotus Notes?
And, do you hate Lotus Notes?
> or from the vendor himself who provide proofs that the system he sells is reliable
It seems that this was the conflict of interest that made Fujitsu's testimony unreliable. They couldn't admit fault without risking the contract. And I'm not sure that relationship was addressed in court for a jury to note.
It seems that this was the conflict of interest that made Fujitsu's testimony unreliable. They couldn't admit fault without risking the contract. And I'm not sure that relationship was addressed in court for a jury to note.
UK courts also sent a woman to prison for infanticide, basically off of the testimony of a single doctor who didn't know how statistics work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
I agree the issue is a legal system bug.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
I agree the issue is a legal system bug.
Wow! That was painful and heart-breaking to read.
The poor woman suffered the loss of her two sons, had to go through a Kafka-esque ordeal of trying to prove her innocence, only to spend three years in prison, all the time being reviled by the press, prison officers and prisoners for being a child-killer. Her second appeal seems to only have been successful because the family discovered that the prosecution had actually withheld exculpatory evidence showing that the second death was actually due to a bacterial infection (the first appeal acknowledged the statistical evidence was flawed but still upheld the conviction). She effectively received a death sentence as she died four years later from psychological issues that were a direct result of her ordeal.
If such a tragic miscarriage of justice could happen to a reasonably well-off, professional working woman (solicitor), it could happen to anyone!
The poor woman suffered the loss of her two sons, had to go through a Kafka-esque ordeal of trying to prove her innocence, only to spend three years in prison, all the time being reviled by the press, prison officers and prisoners for being a child-killer. Her second appeal seems to only have been successful because the family discovered that the prosecution had actually withheld exculpatory evidence showing that the second death was actually due to a bacterial infection (the first appeal acknowledged the statistical evidence was flawed but still upheld the conviction). She effectively received a death sentence as she died four years later from psychological issues that were a direct result of her ordeal.
If such a tragic miscarriage of justice could happen to a reasonably well-off, professional working woman (solicitor), it could happen to anyone!
The judgment has a few details.
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hamilton-others-v-post-of...
There's possibly something on Bailii. (A small volunteer run project, but the website is tricky to use.) Searching for [post office horizon] reveals a few cases.
Here's one useful transcript and discussion: https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/2217
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hamilton-others-v-post-of...
There's possibly something on Bailii. (A small volunteer run project, but the website is tricky to use.) Searching for [post office horizon] reveals a few cases.
Here's one useful transcript and discussion: https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/2217
Everyone except the victims is to blame here. The courts should have done better, but in the UK these people would have been unable to get a public defender and unable to afford their own defence either. So many would have plead guilty and others had to try and manage the defence themselves. The result is predictable.
A wider question is why no one asked why so many people with the same job were being charged and convicted/pleading guilty. Fraud is a rare crime and rarely prosecuted. So many Cases in one profession is fishy all by itself.
A wider question is why no one asked why so many people with the same job were being charged and convicted/pleading guilty. Fraud is a rare crime and rarely prosecuted. So many Cases in one profession is fishy all by itself.
>"but in the UK these people would have been unable to get a public defender and unable to afford their own defence either"
So maybe the UK should spend less time writing horror stories about other "undemocratic" countries and concentrate on their own sorry state of human rights.
What had happen should be impossible in a "democratic western country that respects human rights". Last time I checked they count themselves as one.
So maybe the UK should spend less time writing horror stories about other "undemocratic" countries and concentrate on their own sorry state of human rights.
What had happen should be impossible in a "democratic western country that respects human rights". Last time I checked they count themselves as one.
I think they can do both of those things at the same time.
They're not doing both. Not until they start punishing those responsible. Otherwise it is just oopsy and business as usual till the next big fuckup.
You are getting downvoted, but I think this is a fair point - most folks are busy being patriotic or whatever and do not realise that UK is basically turning into Russia with recent corruption scandal
>"You are getting downvoted"
I wear it as a badge of honor ;)
I wear it as a badge of honor ;)
> but in the UK these people would have been unable to get a public defender
What makes you think that?
What makes you think that?
I've replied above more fully but legal defence is a means tested benefit and the test is very restrictive even for the crown court. Household incomes over 38k mean you pay the whole cost. Or if you have more than about 30k in home equity you also pay the whole cost.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-legal-aid-means-testing
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-legal-aid-means-testing
> but in the UK these people would have been unable to get a public defender
Absolutely not the case. If one cannot afford a solicitor one will be appointed.
Absolutely not the case. If one cannot afford a solicitor one will be appointed.
For a crown court, anyone with an adjusted household income over £22345 is expected to pay in part. Anyone with a household income (unadjusted) over £37500 gets no help. You can also be caught if you have more than about 30k in assets (including equity in your home so anyone who owns in the southeast is screwed).
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-legal-aid-means-testing
I only discovered this 2y ago when I was arrested. My solicitor in the police station explained he was free but only on that day. I'd have to pay in advance if the police choose to prosecute (they didn't, I was released without charge).
A lot of people don't realise how expensive it is to be innocent in the UK sadly.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-legal-aid-means-testing
I only discovered this 2y ago when I was arrested. My solicitor in the police station explained he was free but only on that day. I'd have to pay in advance if the police choose to prosecute (they didn't, I was released without charge).
A lot of people don't realise how expensive it is to be innocent in the UK sadly.
Quite - the criminal justice system is woefully underfunded and COVID has only exacerbated the problem. The means testing leaves many people facing no choice but to plead guilty or risk bankruptcy.
This book is a chilling insight into the state of criminal justice: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken...
This book is a chilling insight into the state of criminal justice: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken...
The only mitigating factor is that unlike the US the UK also massively underfunds prosecutions
https://thesecretbarrister.com/
https://thesecretbarrister.com/
> A wider question is why no one asked why so many people with the same job were being charged and convicted/pleading guilty
Indeed. You would hope at some point someone would ask why so many have "stolen" money, but yet the actual money has never been located in any account, almost as if the money just disappeared, or never existed in the first place. Hmmm.
Indeed. You would hope at some point someone would ask why so many have "stolen" money, but yet the actual money has never been located in any account, almost as if the money just disappeared, or never existed in the first place. Hmmm.
Exactly. Some people went bankrupt trying to pay back large sums they "owed", they had no apparent assets, no apparent extravagant expenses and yet everyone convinced they have a tonne of cash somewhere...
Particularly given that, on the theory that the software was correct, the post office was able to reliably detect the kind of fraud they claim was going on and make the supposed fraudsters pay the money back.
"Bad software" is only part of the story.
From what has been reported in the media, the Post Office and the contractor knew that the software had issues but chose to cover it up and to go after innocent individuals instead. In some instances people were also made to sign settlements preventing them from criticising the software.
This is why this is such a big scandal in the UK. The software was buggy but people lied and sent innocent people to jail to cover it up.
From what has been reported in the media, the Post Office and the contractor knew that the software had issues but chose to cover it up and to go after innocent individuals instead. In some instances people were also made to sign settlements preventing them from criticising the software.
This is why this is such a big scandal in the UK. The software was buggy but people lied and sent innocent people to jail to cover it up.
The law presumes that computer systems operate correctly unless there is evidence to the contrary.
This is a reasonably common thing - for example the law also assumes letters are delivered after being posted unless there is evidence to the contrary.
This is a reasonably common thing - for example the law also assumes letters are delivered after being posted unless there is evidence to the contrary.
To riff off that, it’s also a very common (not universal, nobody is saying that) thing to presume that the justice system works correctly, at least in some countries. But this is aspirational at best.
We need better frameworks for incorporating doubt into our thinking about such things... whether it’s the reliability of computers, or of the justice system, producing what we expect.
We need better frameworks for incorporating doubt into our thinking about such things... whether it’s the reliability of computers, or of the justice system, producing what we expect.
>"This is a reasonably common thing - for example the law also assumes letters are delivered after being posted unless there is evidence to the contrary."
They did not invent registered mail for nothing. It is exactly for the reason that mail does not get delivered. I am sick of counting how many times I've received somebody else's mail. And I got $8,000 worth of integrated circuits from Digikey marked as delivered but missing. By sheer accident found that it's been delivered to the house of one of my neighbors.
I even once chased the postman and asked him why are you dropping somebody else's mail in my box? All I could get from him was: "it is ok"
They did not invent registered mail for nothing. It is exactly for the reason that mail does not get delivered. I am sick of counting how many times I've received somebody else's mail. And I got $8,000 worth of integrated circuits from Digikey marked as delivered but missing. By sheer accident found that it's been delivered to the house of one of my neighbors.
I even once chased the postman and asked him why are you dropping somebody else's mail in my box? All I could get from him was: "it is ok"
But in for legal cases in England and Wales you only need proof of posting, you do not need proof of delivery.
Using proof of delivery can cause problems. People are allowed to decline to accept those letters, and if they do that there's now a paper trail proving they didn't get your letter. That doesn't happen if you just use proof of posting.
Using proof of delivery can cause problems. People are allowed to decline to accept those letters, and if they do that there's now a paper trail proving they didn't get your letter. That doesn't happen if you just use proof of posting.
>"But in for legal cases in England and Wales you only need proof of posting, you do not need proof of delivery"
Then it is sorry state of affairs. People could get punished for no fault of their own.
Then it is sorry state of affairs. People could get punished for no fault of their own.
I don't see the problem in what you describe. Seems like a problem only for people who find the truth inconvenient
> They did not invent registered mail for nothing.
You need proof of posting, not proof of delivery. If you can prove posting, it’s up to them to disprove delivery.
You need proof of posting, not proof of delivery. If you can prove posting, it’s up to them to disprove delivery.
But that's still circumstantial evidence.
If the computer says money amounts don't match, that still doesn't say who stole it.
It could have been the person directly responsible for it -- or it could have been a third party attempting to steal from them, or someone hacking the system, etc.
You still need to go beyond reasonable doubt -- establish motive, establish corroborating evidence, etc.
If the computer says money amounts don't match, that still doesn't say who stole it.
It could have been the person directly responsible for it -- or it could have been a third party attempting to steal from them, or someone hacking the system, etc.
You still need to go beyond reasonable doubt -- establish motive, establish corroborating evidence, etc.
One pretty obvious piece of evidence for faulty software would have been if there were significantly more such accusations after the introduction of this software than before. I wonder if anyone asked for these statistics.
They could always say the software was shining a light on a problem that was going unnoticed before.
That wouldn't be very credible though. They would have had to explain why stock keeping and accounting was so much less accurate before. They would also have to explain why their staff was supposedly far more delinquent than staff at comparable shops.
Of course they can claim anything they want, but it could have weakened their argument considerably. As a defense lawyer I would have asked for those numbers to raise some doubts, not because it's incontrovertible proof.
Of course they can claim anything they want, but it could have weakened their argument considerably. As a defense lawyer I would have asked for those numbers to raise some doubts, not because it's incontrovertible proof.
> They would have had to explain why stock keeping and accounting was so much less accurate before. They would also have to explain why their staff was supposedly far more delinquent than staff at comparable shops.
Clearly they did not have to do these things.
Clearly they did not have to do these things.
I don't know, because I don't know if anyone even asked the question.
They did ask those questions, and it was their defense in court in many cases. Unfortunately, due to a few factors - lack of funds for competent defense lawyers (many of the accused had to represent themselves against the huge teams of Post Office prosecutors), insular court process that involved only internal Post Office investigators and prosecutors, false information given by the Post Office to the accused that they were "the only ones having this problem", "say you're guilty of false accounting and we'll drop the more serious theft charge", and finally, the union representing the accused sided with the Post Office and offered no help at all (and, bizarrely, the Post Office was and I believe still is the major funding source for that union... I'll leave you to do the speculation...)
In addition, the Horizon system only offered the accused the "client-side" data, so to speak - they could see what they had inputted and what the system had printed out. They couldn't see any kind of internal transaction data, or what happened to the data once it was inputted. Post Office repeatedly obstructed attempts of the accused, their lawyers, and even the third-party auditor they hired to examine the system for faults to retrieve that data - likely because they knew that handing over that data would immediately show the flaws in the system.
The whole thing just stinks of corruption, to be honest.
In addition, the Horizon system only offered the accused the "client-side" data, so to speak - they could see what they had inputted and what the system had printed out. They couldn't see any kind of internal transaction data, or what happened to the data once it was inputted. Post Office repeatedly obstructed attempts of the accused, their lawyers, and even the third-party auditor they hired to examine the system for faults to retrieve that data - likely because they knew that handing over that data would immediately show the flaws in the system.
The whole thing just stinks of corruption, to be honest.
Thanks for the info. It's truly shocking what has happened in this case - on so many levels.
There is a paper here [1] based a lot on these cases calling for a review of the presumption that computer evidence is correct.
It is an absolutely crazy situation where the onus is on the person disputing the computer evidence to show that something is wrong. Even in the middle ages they had a system in place where both parties would have reliable evidence to deal with non reputation in financial transactions. They used a split wooden tally sticks [2], yet now because it is on a computer, and computers are supposedly rarely wrong the courts will allow an organisation to produce something from essentially their own 1 sided ledger and it is up to the other side to prove it wrong. The sub postmasters had no evidence, no ledgers or paper receipts of their own, they were expected to rely entirely on this system to be correct, when it wasn't the entire justice system was rigged against them with the only possibility of winning was to prove that a multi million £ IT system was not working correctly. This would have been hard enough anyway, but the company who built it and the one using it were both willing to lie to cover up its failings.
[1]https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick
It is an absolutely crazy situation where the onus is on the person disputing the computer evidence to show that something is wrong. Even in the middle ages they had a system in place where both parties would have reliable evidence to deal with non reputation in financial transactions. They used a split wooden tally sticks [2], yet now because it is on a computer, and computers are supposedly rarely wrong the courts will allow an organisation to produce something from essentially their own 1 sided ledger and it is up to the other side to prove it wrong. The sub postmasters had no evidence, no ledgers or paper receipts of their own, they were expected to rely entirely on this system to be correct, when it wasn't the entire justice system was rigged against them with the only possibility of winning was to prove that a multi million £ IT system was not working correctly. This would have been hard enough anyway, but the company who built it and the one using it were both willing to lie to cover up its failings.
[1]https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick
>Does anyone know how the courts rendered these verdicts?
I am wondering too if they maybe had "experts" testify , and those experts were just clueless.
I am wondering too if they maybe had "experts" testify , and those experts were just clueless.
I've heard whispers that lies may have been told under oath, but can't say definitively. A criminal prosecution looks likely to be opened regardless.
Apparently, some of the defendants were also so intimidated by the problem they tried to replace the "lost" money with their own money.
People believe machines because they don't lie. There is a cognitive dissonance between knowing that software is written by humans who make lots of errors and the believe that machines don't make errors.
Courts are led by humans. Judges (and juries) and in particular old judges (and older juries) often don't have a good grasp on technology and injustice like this happens. Luckily there is the appeal process in most modern countries so that such misdeeds can be corrected. Unfortunately a lot of people were hurt by this. Hopefully some good education of justice officials can come out of this.
Legal reform is like software refactoring. You always know it needs to happen. It rarely ever does. Even if it does, there's still bugs.
> Since when does a court accept the uncorroborated report of software, without any other corroborating evidence, and sentence someone?
Since before software has had bugs. Law is the human-governance form of software. It's just as shitty as software is, for the same exact reason.
> Since when does a court accept the uncorroborated report of software, without any other corroborating evidence, and sentence someone?
Since before software has had bugs. Law is the human-governance form of software. It's just as shitty as software is, for the same exact reason.
This occurs for other things across a variety of spheres, but defence barristers are more or less experienced in some of those spheres, and lay people have more or less knowledge in some spheres.
If a police officer tells the jury that they are 100% sure the person they saw with the knife was the defendant, the defence understands how and to what extent they might be able to persuade the jury that the officer is mistaken about this, or how else to undermine this testimony, and they won't accept it if the officer seems to suggest that, since they're sure this was the person with the knife therefore that person stabbed the victim. There are lots of reasons why, even if the jury is convinced their client is lying and had a knife, that doesn't necessarily mean they stabbed the victim.
In contrast when an "IT expert" tells the jury that 100% the only way this database entry would appear is if the defendant stole money, the defence legal team may be unsure how to persuade a jury (since they aren't IT experts) that this might not be so, and they may end up allowing this to go unchallenged even though I would know to ask lots of questions about access, logging, test strategies, and so on.
Or if a medical doctor tells the jury that the only way this baby gets so many broken bones is that her parents were deliberately shaking her because she was crying, and so they're guilty of murder, the lawyer isn't a medic, and neither is the jury. So who is there to tell them that er, actually there can be other causes and the prosecution needs something else?
Light Blue Touchpaper covered some cases where it seems likely what happened is that crap implementations of EMV ("Chip and PIN") were defrauded by crooks who understood where the flaws were and how to exploit them, but the banks went after their customers, telling juries that the machine is infallible and if it says they used a PIN, that must be true, even though the researchers show various ways it might not in fact be true. Further, bank employees will cheerfully tell a jury that there's no way for other employees to discover a customer PIN, even though meanwhile the bank is firing employees it knows did just that. We ultimately cannot entirely insulate the justice system against people who lie under oath. We can only punish them when they get caught.
So, to the extent anything should be done here, you'd want to start with say, not rewarding the people at Post Office Ltd and in the Horizon team who lied about this and tried so hard to prevent justice being done. Two guesses whether the present government chose to do that...
If a police officer tells the jury that they are 100% sure the person they saw with the knife was the defendant, the defence understands how and to what extent they might be able to persuade the jury that the officer is mistaken about this, or how else to undermine this testimony, and they won't accept it if the officer seems to suggest that, since they're sure this was the person with the knife therefore that person stabbed the victim. There are lots of reasons why, even if the jury is convinced their client is lying and had a knife, that doesn't necessarily mean they stabbed the victim.
In contrast when an "IT expert" tells the jury that 100% the only way this database entry would appear is if the defendant stole money, the defence legal team may be unsure how to persuade a jury (since they aren't IT experts) that this might not be so, and they may end up allowing this to go unchallenged even though I would know to ask lots of questions about access, logging, test strategies, and so on.
Or if a medical doctor tells the jury that the only way this baby gets so many broken bones is that her parents were deliberately shaking her because she was crying, and so they're guilty of murder, the lawyer isn't a medic, and neither is the jury. So who is there to tell them that er, actually there can be other causes and the prosecution needs something else?
Light Blue Touchpaper covered some cases where it seems likely what happened is that crap implementations of EMV ("Chip and PIN") were defrauded by crooks who understood where the flaws were and how to exploit them, but the banks went after their customers, telling juries that the machine is infallible and if it says they used a PIN, that must be true, even though the researchers show various ways it might not in fact be true. Further, bank employees will cheerfully tell a jury that there's no way for other employees to discover a customer PIN, even though meanwhile the bank is firing employees it knows did just that. We ultimately cannot entirely insulate the justice system against people who lie under oath. We can only punish them when they get caught.
So, to the extent anything should be done here, you'd want to start with say, not rewarding the people at Post Office Ltd and in the Horizon team who lied about this and tried so hard to prevent justice being done. Two guesses whether the present government chose to do that...
> the defence legal team may be unsure how to persuade a jury (since they aren't IT experts) that this might not be so
Then they're a crap defense.
They find an expert witness -- an IT witness in this case -- for their side to explain how the software might make errors, how no software is perfect, etc. Having opposing expert witnesses, one for prosecution and one for defense, is standard.
Lawyers don't need to be domain experts in every, or even most, cases they take on. They do need to find experts though.
Then they're a crap defense.
They find an expert witness -- an IT witness in this case -- for their side to explain how the software might make errors, how no software is perfect, etc. Having opposing expert witnesses, one for prosecution and one for defense, is standard.
Lawyers don't need to be domain experts in every, or even most, cases they take on. They do need to find experts though.
It’s not really ‘standard’ because instructing expert witnesses and going to trial is beyond the financial capacity of most criminal defendants, as well as the legal aid system which needs to carefully ration funds that could be allocated to other cases. And even when the funds are available, it’s unlikely that a defence expert, in the time it would take them to bill an average person’s annual income, could understand much about a sprawling enterprise accounting system that cost millions of pounds and has thousands of daily users:
> Defence accounting and IT experts were instructed. Detailed disclosure requests were made in respect of Horizon and its underlying data … On the other side of the scales, statements from Fujitsu employees attested to Horizon's reliability. Ultimately, the issue of Horizon's unreliability was not pursued at trial – possibly because the defence experts had struggled to understand the Horizon system.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Hamilton...
> Defence accounting and IT experts were instructed. Detailed disclosure requests were made in respect of Horizon and its underlying data … On the other side of the scales, statements from Fujitsu employees attested to Horizon's reliability. Ultimately, the issue of Horizon's unreliability was not pursued at trial – possibly because the defence experts had struggled to understand the Horizon system.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Hamilton...
Not only the software was buggy, the court was buggy as well ...
I've made this point on LinkedIn and I'll make it here - bad software did not send postal workers to jail.
Read the judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Hamilton...
The Post Office knew Horizon had faults and had a legal duty to disclose its knowledge to the defendants when prosecuting them. They failed to do so.
Paragraphs 81-90 are frankly unbelievable and I question what Post Office's own lawyers were doing.
Paragraph 91(iii):
A memorandum dated 22 October 2010 by a senior lawyer in POL’s Criminal Law Division reported the successful prosecution of Seema Misra. The memorandum complained that the case had involved “an unprecedented attack on the Horizon system” which, the author said, the prosecution team had been able to “destroy”. He ended the memorandum, which was copied to the Press Office, by expressing the hope that “the case will set a marker to dissuade other defendants from jumping on the Horizon bashing bandwagon”.
The prosecution team had "destroyed" it because they had withheld crucial evidence supporting the allegations against the Horizon system.
The Seema Misra case is what started the unravelling because her husband called a journalist, Nick Wallis [1], who has spent 10 years investigating and reporting on this case.
It's a scandal of immense proportions and three convicted individuals died before seeing their convictions quashed. It is very sad.
[1] https://www.nickwallis.com
Read the judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Hamilton...
The Post Office knew Horizon had faults and had a legal duty to disclose its knowledge to the defendants when prosecuting them. They failed to do so.
Paragraphs 81-90 are frankly unbelievable and I question what Post Office's own lawyers were doing.
Paragraph 91(iii):
A memorandum dated 22 October 2010 by a senior lawyer in POL’s Criminal Law Division reported the successful prosecution of Seema Misra. The memorandum complained that the case had involved “an unprecedented attack on the Horizon system” which, the author said, the prosecution team had been able to “destroy”. He ended the memorandum, which was copied to the Press Office, by expressing the hope that “the case will set a marker to dissuade other defendants from jumping on the Horizon bashing bandwagon”.
The prosecution team had "destroyed" it because they had withheld crucial evidence supporting the allegations against the Horizon system.
The Seema Misra case is what started the unravelling because her husband called a journalist, Nick Wallis [1], who has spent 10 years investigating and reporting on this case.
It's a scandal of immense proportions and three convicted individuals died before seeing their convictions quashed. It is very sad.
[1] https://www.nickwallis.com
What are the chances we'll see jail time for any of the people responsible? I'm guessing zero?
I find it hard to believe that the approach taken - to prosecute sub post masters in this way - didn't make it to board level (indeed if it didn't then that by itself would be a corporate failure).
Individual managers may have had incentives that would lead to take this approach but the PO Board should have had an overview and have been able to correct this.
In any event a great scandal and very sad as you say.
Individual managers may have had incentives that would lead to take this approach but the PO Board should have had an overview and have been able to correct this.
In any event a great scandal and very sad as you say.
Back in the 80s on the Usenet, there used to be a popular forum & newsletter called comp.risks on the potential risks of computer technology failures in the society, such as software bugs. Incidents like this one were exactly the situation imagined by the forum members.
It still exists! It's now mainly a mailing list, which I'm still subscribed to and still receiving. Unfortunately right this second the website seems to be down, but it's: http://www.risks.org
People getting forcibly removed from overbooked flights was another. When policies rely solely on computer automation, and human employees aren't allowed to make common sense ad hoc decisions, you end up with some ridiculous injustices (however petty).
The craziest thing to me here is that they never actually found any of the accused to be in possession of the funds they had supposedly embezzled. I wonder if there's someone sitting on a beach somewhere with their favorite stapler and all of those fractions of pennies piled up on an offshore account...
Yes, someone from Fujitsu who didn't deliver quality software, refused to accept it _might_ be buggy.
>In the same speech, he said that the Post Office would work with the government to compensate the employees who were affected by Horizon’s inaccuracies.
Fujitsu won't even be held financially accountable for the suicide, but tax payers will. To me, it sounds like a great deal, delivery shitty software, bounce back any questions about quality, bugs, refuse to re-test software for given scenarios for years, but still get paid.
>In the same speech, he said that the Post Office would work with the government to compensate the employees who were affected by Horizon’s inaccuracies.
Fujitsu won't even be held financially accountable for the suicide, but tax payers will. To me, it sounds like a great deal, delivery shitty software, bounce back any questions about quality, bugs, refuse to re-test software for given scenarios for years, but still get paid.
It's just another example of "socialise the losses".
IF people at Fujitsu knew that there were problems with the system and IF they still presented evidence that it was infallible, then people need to be going to prison.
IF people at Fujitsu knew that there were problems with the system and IF they still presented evidence that it was infallible, then people need to be going to prison.
People at RM knew about it. They were covering up the operation and protecting the system, which already cost tax payers 100M.
If one were writing a novel, the thief would be hiding their tracks by being in a key place feeding the prosecution.
But really there is a track record of court systems latching onto criminal prosecutions via questionable technologies from handwriting analysis to lie detectors et al.
But really there is a track record of court systems latching onto criminal prosecutions via questionable technologies from handwriting analysis to lie detectors et al.
There was a TV series about it.
A lot of criticism of the courts here - much of which is probably reasonable.
I wonder though if one element is that post masters were of course prosecuted individually, and the evidence mounted against them may have looked convincing on an individual basis - with the courts not having the time or the resources to mount a full scale investigation into the validity of the claims made by the post office.
Only when looked at in aggregate did the position look absurd - 700 or so postmasters breaking the law in this way out of 12,000 or so post offices. I suspect that it's rare for courts to perform a probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of an offence occurring.
The only people with an overview of the situation were post office management and they chose to cover it up.
I wonder though if one element is that post masters were of course prosecuted individually, and the evidence mounted against them may have looked convincing on an individual basis - with the courts not having the time or the resources to mount a full scale investigation into the validity of the claims made by the post office.
Only when looked at in aggregate did the position look absurd - 700 or so postmasters breaking the law in this way out of 12,000 or so post offices. I suspect that it's rare for courts to perform a probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of an offence occurring.
The only people with an overview of the situation were post office management and they chose to cover it up.
This is a horrifying miscarriage of justice, and could not have happened if "free/libre" was in the software's specifications. We must demand software freedom! Users must be entitled to see, run, modify, and share software.
> could not have happened
Could still happen. But would be less likely.
Could still happen. But would be less likely.
Even if the software was messed up there must have been some bank records that they double checked. Don't banks have some sort of the paper trail.
As I understand it, the issue is there was never a second record.
Imagine you run a post office, people pay you cash to post their letter/parcel instead of putting a stamp on it.
You are meant to enter into the till every time you do that. Every pound you get this way, you owe 50p to RM who will pickup and deliver whatever is in the bag at the end of the day.
You diligently and honestly enter every pound you get into the till. But the till is broken, every time someone buys a Mars bar, it adds one to the count of objects posted.
At the end of the month, royal mail think you posted 1000s of extra items. They demand 1000s of extra 50ps. You didn't and don't count every item, that's the tills job. But somehow your losing money. You don't know how, RM don't care they just demand payment. Sooner or later you cannot pay (or refuse as the number must be wrong).
Then the courts get involved...
Imagine you run a post office, people pay you cash to post their letter/parcel instead of putting a stamp on it.
You are meant to enter into the till every time you do that. Every pound you get this way, you owe 50p to RM who will pickup and deliver whatever is in the bag at the end of the day.
You diligently and honestly enter every pound you get into the till. But the till is broken, every time someone buys a Mars bar, it adds one to the count of objects posted.
At the end of the month, royal mail think you posted 1000s of extra items. They demand 1000s of extra 50ps. You didn't and don't count every item, that's the tills job. But somehow your losing money. You don't know how, RM don't care they just demand payment. Sooner or later you cannot pay (or refuse as the number must be wrong).
Then the courts get involved...
this is indeed the mind-boggling part for me. nothing was done to prove these people guilty but simply trust the output of a piece of software.
in the deep-mind world we live in today that's a scary thing to do.
i am going to have to agree with the group that feel unhappy with the monetary outcome.
in the deep-mind world we live in today that's a scary thing to do.
i am going to have to agree with the group that feel unhappy with the monetary outcome.
wait until we weaponize the AI and let smart weapons decide who lives or dies
Does it matter? Humans have an excellent track record of deciding who lives and dies.
What worries me more is that smarter killing machines will make humans more efficient at killing the “right” people.
One of the biggest problems we face in the modern world is the excessive confidence in software from people who don't write it. All software of nontrivial complexity contains bugs, this is unavoidable and people need to be taught to think before trusting the software because you never know when you will come across a software bug.
I don't know the best way to get this message across to people who don't write software but there has to be a way to get them to practice a basic level of critical thinking before blindly accepting what the software says.
I don't know the best way to get this message across to people who don't write software but there has to be a way to get them to practice a basic level of critical thinking before blindly accepting what the software says.
This story has been covered for a while by the investigative/satirical magazine Private Eye in the uk-
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/justi...
There's also a podcast about it as well-
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/49
It's a fascinating and heartbreaking story. The film Brazil made real.
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/justi...
There's also a podcast about it as well-
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/49
It's a fascinating and heartbreaking story. The film Brazil made real.
This is one of the worst miscarriages of justice in the UK this century - and it's amazing it is not a bigger scandal.
But we should hope to see legal changes over software evidence - especially as we walk into the AI world - Inpersonally would like to see open publication of the software in any court case. It might at least make people think twice.
But we should hope to see legal changes over software evidence - especially as we walk into the AI world - Inpersonally would like to see open publication of the software in any court case. It might at least make people think twice.
This is terrible, not to mention the UK was already the setting of the archetypical example of "prosecutor's fallacy" and flawed statistics-- Meadow's Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow%27s_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow%27s_law
It's scary that this could have happened without substantial corroborating evidence. I don't care how reliable you think the software is. Software has bugs! For any enterprise system of any scale, no matter how tight the development, and especially once you start to evolve the system, is going to be full of them. This idea of proving reliability is fantasy. Proofs might work on mathematically-based algorithms ie certain discrete bit of code like a cryptographic function, but you can't ultimately proove anything about any system of any scale. You can use heuristics like tests to gain a high degree of confidence but "proofs" or anything even in that ballpark?!
And all I can think of is programmers who want to spend time ensuring that their software is correct, but have “sprint goals” to meet.
This is beyond "Terry Gilliam's Brazil" level of dystopic.
I got googling this after reading this breaking story on the Beeb:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-56856193 (Postmasters await 'stealing money' appeal verdict)
and was wondering what the people who built this software were doing while 10s of innocent people went to jail. Also, the nature of the bugs was not very clear in the general media coverage - the submitted link goes into this in more detail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-56856193 (Postmasters await 'stealing money' appeal verdict)
and was wondering what the people who built this software were doing while 10s of innocent people went to jail. Also, the nature of the bugs was not very clear in the general media coverage - the submitted link goes into this in more detail.
A bureaucratic nightmare straight out of Terry Gillian's classic film, Brazil[a].
Thankfully, in this case we got a Hollywood-style ending in which innocent postal workers were ultimately found not to be guilty, so they weren't completely chewed up by the bureaucratic machinery.
Still, what a horrible ordeal.
[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)
Thankfully, in this case we got a Hollywood-style ending in which innocent postal workers were ultimately found not to be guilty, so they weren't completely chewed up by the bureaucratic machinery.
Still, what a horrible ordeal.
[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)
Unfortunately civic literacy is at an all time low in our country. In many ways our constitutional foundation is being openly questioned, let alone reinforced in school.
If people don’t believe foundational things like “innocent until proven guilty” then we have a lot of other issues coming down the pipeline. The opposite is being reinforced by activists, social media, mainstream media, and even large corporations.
If people don’t believe foundational things like “innocent until proven guilty” then we have a lot of other issues coming down the pipeline. The opposite is being reinforced by activists, social media, mainstream media, and even large corporations.
I heard this on Radio 4 this morning, and I can't believe I'd never heard the story before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_(IT_system)
Horizon was introduced in 2000, and from then onwards unexplained discrepancies and losses began to be reported by sub-postmasters. The Post Office maintained that Horizon was "robust" and that none of the shortfalls or discrepancies in sub-postmasters' branch accounts were due to problems caused by Horizon. Sub-postmasters unwilling or unable to make good the shortfalls were sometimes prosecuted (by the Post Office's in-house prosecution team) for theft, false accounting and/or fraud. This was done on IT evidence alone, without proof of criminal intent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_(IT_system)
Horizon was introduced in 2000, and from then onwards unexplained discrepancies and losses began to be reported by sub-postmasters. The Post Office maintained that Horizon was "robust" and that none of the shortfalls or discrepancies in sub-postmasters' branch accounts were due to problems caused by Horizon. Sub-postmasters unwilling or unable to make good the shortfalls were sometimes prosecuted (by the Post Office's in-house prosecution team) for theft, false accounting and/or fraud. This was done on IT evidence alone, without proof of criminal intent.
> Earlier this month the chief executive of the Post Office said that Horizon would be replaced with a new, cloud-based solution.
I'm sure that will fix it. The problem is bigger than the software, obviously.
I'm sure that will fix it. The problem is bigger than the software, obviously.
Will be a lot harder to prove the software was wrong if it uses AI
Hopefully the victims of this incompetence can sue for in excess of a million pounds each. Sure the government will pass it on to the taxpayers, but lots of departments will feel their budgets artificially shrunk due to it, and that's perhaps enough inconvenience for them to think twice before slacking off and blindly trusting software.
There are auditors who are supposed to scrutinise this stuff. Audit trails with counter party ledgers, receipts, reconciliation with bank statements can easily bring out any such fraud.
To claim the miscarriage of justice happened due to “bugs” is wrong. It’s due to bad auditors. I think this is poor journalism.
To claim the miscarriage of justice happened due to “bugs” is wrong. It’s due to bad auditors. I think this is poor journalism.
Guess this is just one more instance the British justice system shows how incompetent and outdated it is with its regulations and officials in regards to modern tech. And I have no doubt the same goes for most other countries, but hey why listen to the experts when you're in power, right?
... and the contract was renewed (for £42.5m) a couple of weeks ago
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/07/post_office_fujitsu_h...
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/07/post_office_fujitsu_h...
Software do not send people to jail, people send people to jail.
The users/supervisors and those involved in the persecution are to blame not to investigate the matter much much sooner and using software output blindly.
Has much information come out from the Fujitsu side yet? I guess the inside story of what it was like developing Horizon is too much to hope for, but (as a software engineer) important to understand.
I wonder what Fujitsu's QA and testing process looked like. I'm sure they had 100% unit test coverage, integration tests, feature tests, and QA testing.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but yes, they may have had all those things, and still had this bug, because cargo cult testing is not usually effective at finding bugs.
> ... what is reportedly the largest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever seen.
Journalists just can't help themselves. EVERYTHING MUST BE THE WORST EVER
Journalists just can't help themselves. EVERYTHING MUST BE THE WORST EVER
I think in this case they simply mean it's the highest number of defendents who have succeeded in having their convictions overturned.
On the end who's accountable for this mess? Also what do those software looks like tech wise, is it some heavy enterprise Java with Oracle?
The Post Office is responsible because they drove the process of:
1) buying broken software and not checking it was fit for purpose
2) Vigorously investigating post masters and not relenting even when many of the people being investigated claimed there must be a problem with the software
3) (and this is the kicker) continuing when they started to realise that maybe the software was the problem
Personally I think members of the board at the time need to face some kind of criminal, or at least civil, action here.
1) buying broken software and not checking it was fit for purpose
2) Vigorously investigating post masters and not relenting even when many of the people being investigated claimed there must be a problem with the software
3) (and this is the kicker) continuing when they started to realise that maybe the software was the problem
Personally I think members of the board at the time need to face some kind of criminal, or at least civil, action here.
> On the end who's accountable for this mess?
The judicial system. You don't lock someone up because some powerful/big company say they stole. My guess is they took the company for its own word.
The judicial system. You don't lock someone up because some powerful/big company say they stole. My guess is they took the company for its own word.
People say holding government responsible for mistakes in court is difficult and takes decades. Holding the justice system itself responsible is impossible.
In .nl it was found youth judges sent kids and lone mothers to an institution practicing slavery, knowingly, for decades. Textiles. Nobody has ever been held responsible, least of all judges.
In .nl it was found youth judges sent kids and lone mothers to an institution practicing slavery, knowingly, for decades. Textiles. Nobody has ever been held responsible, least of all judges.
It's funny because when it was the little guy it deserves jail time, when they found it was a software company it's negligence and no jail time. That being said I understand why, but try convincing the people that were jailed of that.
Do you think that using your favorite cool language and stack there will never be logic errors? Could be worse, some idiot developer would be even less humble if he thinks he is using some bullet proof language.
I hope the wrongly accused are able to sue the software company to get better than the offered 22k compensation.
Will any developers involved in this horrible scandal ever will be held accountable for their work?
I wonder if the developers who were responsible for such a bug-infested piece of software realise their work has destroyed people's lives? (They presumably never met the users of their software.)
Do those developers even realise it was their incompetence that caused untold misery? Or are they completely detached from the events in this scandal and see themselves as simply cogs in the 'system' and thus blameless?
Developers are often quick to point the finger of blame at others (usually management). But this cannot excuse what those developers delivered in this case: software simply unfit for use. The end consequence was the ruin of many lives. Meanwhile, the developers face no consequences.
I wonder if the developers who were responsible for such a bug-infested piece of software realise their work has destroyed people's lives? (They presumably never met the users of their software.)
Do those developers even realise it was their incompetence that caused untold misery? Or are they completely detached from the events in this scandal and see themselves as simply cogs in the 'system' and thus blameless?
Developers are often quick to point the finger of blame at others (usually management). But this cannot excuse what those developers delivered in this case: software simply unfit for use. The end consequence was the ruin of many lives. Meanwhile, the developers face no consequences.
> Do those developers even realise it was their incompetence that caused untold misery?
Whilst the developers did ship broken software, I don't think you can lay the blame for the misery at their door directly - that should be on the management who, when presented with evidence that the software was garbage, doubled-down and decided to prosecute rather than running tests, etc.
Whilst the developers did ship broken software, I don't think you can lay the blame for the misery at their door directly - that should be on the management who, when presented with evidence that the software was garbage, doubled-down and decided to prosecute rather than running tests, etc.
I agree with you that some blame must be apportioned to management. But also I feel it's too easy as a developer to see yourself as part of a team and thus absolved of any individual blame. You're subsumed in the "team" - and ultimately no-one takes responsibly.
Even with management at fault, one cannot deny that the developers produced absolute garbage.
I hope the developers who worked on this system, no matter how much they feel they are not responsible for the failure of this project, will reflect on how the impact of software they built had devastating consequences on people's lives.
Even with management at fault, one cannot deny that the developers produced absolute garbage.
I hope the developers who worked on this system, no matter how much they feel they are not responsible for the failure of this project, will reflect on how the impact of software they built had devastating consequences on people's lives.
This is shameful. The creators/endorsers of this software are negligent and impede progress technology can bring to society: these people should be ousted from our profession.
The project managers who demand one-hour turnaround on every feature request and mandatory overtime are to blame.
The State of Michigan installed a software program to eliminate tens of millions of dollars of unemployment fraud. Seems foreign actors figured out how to cheat the system.
Along comes COVID-19 and tens of thousands of Michigan residents have legitimate unemployment claims denied. Some people have been waiting for over a year.
What about all the fraud? Seems the foreign actors figured out how to beat the new system and fraud is at record levels.
Sorry no link but both Detroit newspapers are behind paywalls - even for articles that were free to read at the date of their publication :<( .
Along comes COVID-19 and tens of thousands of Michigan residents have legitimate unemployment claims denied. Some people have been waiting for over a year.
What about all the fraud? Seems the foreign actors figured out how to beat the new system and fraud is at record levels.
Sorry no link but both Detroit newspapers are behind paywalls - even for articles that were free to read at the date of their publication :<( .
The full headline:
> Bad software sent postal workers to jail, because no one wanted to admit it could be wrong
The people who didn't want to admit that the software could be wrong... sent postal workers to jail.
> Bad software sent postal workers to jail, because no one wanted to admit it could be wrong
The people who didn't want to admit that the software could be wrong... sent postal workers to jail.
The full headline feels misleading. It's not that no-one wanted to admit it could be wrong. No-one wanted to admit it was wrong. There were plenty of people involved who were well aware it was wrong, they just didn't want the consequences of that admission.
We've changed it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26927818.
The UK postal service used to be a public institution but was privatized in the early 2000s. For all the indignant rhetoric from public figures, you can be completely sure that no penal consequences are going to fall on the management, police or prosecutors that cheerfully sent people off to prison absent any evidence of the 'missing' funds' existence outside of the computerized accounting system.
Anytime you work for a company that has some form of obvious negligence, be careful what you sign and agree to. One day, they may have a major incident and when they get caught rather than admit fault they will simply point fingers as whoever is the easiest target.
Basic professional ethics. Don't do or participate what you're not comfortable with. Hold your ground and let them either do things right or fire you.
This happened to me at a Big Name university where they wanted me to rush punching major holes in a secure private network for credit card processing to make it more convenient for a contractor to be able to remote in. I told my boss "it's not going to happen on this timeline without a security review" and was told to do it or resign. That was it.
This happened to me at a Big Name university where they wanted me to rush punching major holes in a secure private network for credit card processing to make it more convenient for a contractor to be able to remote in. I told my boss "it's not going to happen on this timeline without a security review" and was told to do it or resign. That was it.
I don't get this from the story. No one from the Post Office or Fujitsu has been held accountable. Literally no one and this case, these cases, were ongoing since 1999.
Tuttle.. Buttle.
Guilty!
Send them to the Ministry of Information Retrieval.
Guilty!
Send them to the Ministry of Information Retrieval.
People sent postal workers to jail. A judicial system convicted and jailed them. The bad software was just one part of the input to that decision.
As the BBC article which should have been linked quotes their attorney as saying, the post office is "an organisation that not only turned a blind eye to the failings in its hugely expensive IT system, but positively promoted a culture of cover-up and subterfuge in the pursuit of reputation and profit"
As the BBC article which should have been linked quotes their attorney as saying, the post office is "an organisation that not only turned a blind eye to the failings in its hugely expensive IT system, but positively promoted a culture of cover-up and subterfuge in the pursuit of reputation and profit"
We've changed the URL now. The submitted URL (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399721/uk-post-office-s...) had the bad bad software title.
Yes, people also built the buggy software. But the role of software here can’t be overlooked. Because people trust software to run the modern world, there is a high level of trust that this software is working properly. The article says that this trust was misplaced in this case and it caused serious harm. It doesn’t just blame the existence of software, but questions the way in which it is built, used, and the ways in which society places trust in it.
> But the role of software here can’t be overlooked.
Whilst giving testimony in one case that there couldn't have been software errors, one of the Post Office executives was participating in internal communications regarding clear cut cases of software errors.
Yes, the software is bad, but these executives actively engaged in a cover up, in court. They should be prosecuted.
Whilst giving testimony in one case that there couldn't have been software errors, one of the Post Office executives was participating in internal communications regarding clear cut cases of software errors.
Yes, the software is bad, but these executives actively engaged in a cover up, in court. They should be prosecuted.
> The bad software was just one part of the input to that decision.
To play devil's advocate was there evidence of malfeasance besides the software?
If not, it is a bit disingenuous to say that the software did not send them to jail. If it was a witness who was mistaken and that was the only evidence, in standard english, we would say the witness sent them to jail.
To play devil's advocate was there evidence of malfeasance besides the software?
If not, it is a bit disingenuous to say that the software did not send them to jail. If it was a witness who was mistaken and that was the only evidence, in standard english, we would say the witness sent them to jail.
Saying it was the software absolves others of responsibility. If anyone knew it was buggy and went forth prosecuting these individuals anyway, they themselves should be sent to jail for criminal negligence.
Yes. I'm not going to summarize it for you. Read the articles that are the original reporting. They contain many details of the post office knowing they had problems and covering them up, allowing folks to be prosecuted rather than to own up to IT problems.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52905378
Also please don't post leading comments as being "devil's advocate". It's the laziest form of rhetoric, "just asking questions".
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56859357 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52905378
Also please don't post leading comments as being "devil's advocate". It's the laziest form of rhetoric, "just asking questions".
I think you've taken
rileymat2's comment the opposite way than was intended.
If you knew that witness was unreliable and you still prosecuted based on that witness, and covered up evidence you had of their unreliability...
qyi(3)
n-gate dream come true
No it was the Post office mangers that did that
?
The system miscalculated some figures and assumed subpostmasters (delivery people) were stealing money. There was likely no theft occurring.
The system miscalculated some figures and assumed subpostmasters (delivery people) were stealing money. There was likely no theft occurring.
UK court clears post office staff convicted due to ‘corrupt data’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26913037 - April 2021 (279 comments)
Some past threads:
UK Post Office: Error-laden software ruined staff lives - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26905528 - April 2021 (3 comments)
UK legal system assumes that computers don't have bugs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25518936 - Dec 2020 (24 comments)
Post Office scandal: Postmasters celebrate victory against convictions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24661321 - Oct 2020 (2 comments)
Faults in Post Office accounting system led to workers being convicted of theft - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21795219 - Dec 2019 (103 comments)
Post Office hires accountants to review sub-postmasters' computer claims - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4143107 - June 2012 (1 comment)
p.s. I've changed URL above from https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399721/uk-post-office-s... to the BBC article it's based on.