taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (08/02/86)
This article is from rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw%mcnc.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA and was received on Fri Aug 1 13:33:20 1986 > munnari!cidam.rmit.oz!mg (Mike A. Gigante) > Unless it has been *proven* that the machine/program is > *completely error free*, I think that a miscarriage of justice is a definate > possibility if a machine/program is used as incriminating evidence. This is hardly unique to computerized evidence. A miscarriage of justice is possible with or without a computer. The only computer-unique element here (I think) is the more-or-less blind trust that many people have in "computer results". There is no legal solution to this... people must simply learn what to expect about the fallibility of computers. > Honestly, would like like someone else's code to decide your fate? Ay dunno. Would *you* like someone else's (say) logical analysis of your whereabouts at the time of the crime to decide your fate? What if the logic were faulty, but very complicated so that the fault was not apparent? Again, this problem is not at all unique to computers. > Taken to it's extreme, you could have duelling debug sessions in a court > room :-) (Hah! but I just fixed that bug 2 minutes ago!) Yes indeed. Just as we now have disputes over the expertise of this or that expert witness. I think that at base, this problem is just another statement of the "blind trust in computers" problem. Yes, some people are naive about how much trust to place in "computer results". Yes, we can come up with hundreds of scenarios where this is a danger or detriment to society. But the interesting thing is how to combat it, not to give zillions of examples of it, right? -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (08/05/86)
This article is from tektronix!reed!omssw2!sequent!john (John Vander Borght) and was received on Mon Aug 4 17:12:59 1986 > I think that at base, this problem is just another statement of the > "blind trust in computers" problem. Yes, some people are naive about > how much trust to place in "computer results". Yes, we can come up with > hundreds of scenarios where this is a danger or detriment to society. > But the interesting thing is how to combat it, not to give zillions of > examples of it, right? > > Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw The people's "blind trust in computers" will probably be taken care of when they see two "expert" computers giving exactly the opposite results. This should happen real soon (judging from the results of a lot of programs I've seen). (-; John Vander Borght, Software Product Support Specialist [ogcvax,tektronix,pur-ee,ut-sally,decwrl]!sequent!john [What John refers to is also known as the `dueling compilers' game - in which users feed programs to two compilers to see if they'll ever agree on the output code... *chuckle* --Dave]