People’s freedom jeopardised by new software adopted by California’s courts

Re:People’s freedom jeopardised by new software adopted by C... by andrewla on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @11:22AM (#13071974)

It definitely seems like more of the blame here should be shouldered by the police and the courts, who, knowing that the system has problems (and hopefully assured that those problems will be resolved in the future) should put less faith in them, and double-check (against filed papers, for example) potentially dubious results.

This is more expensive in terms of people's times, but it's just part of the cost of adopting the new software, and should be treated as such, possibly by billing the software vendor for the additional manpower required to work with the software during the transition.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:People’s freedom jeopardised by new software adopted by C... by ptaipale on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @12:27PM (#13072660)

Indeed. The "Computer says no" or "Computer says catch him" attitude should change: particularly if you know it's a new system, check twice before making drastic actions based on data it gives.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:People’s freedom jeopardised by new software adopted by C... by dsfyu404ed on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @01:54PM (#13073525)

Even just "computer says this record has been randomly selected for manual review to verify system integrity, please consult your administrator on how to proceed or enter a manager's PIN to override" would be really helpful since it would effectively train people in double checking.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:People’s freedom jeopardised by new software adopted by C... by daveleebbc on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @07:06PM (#13075865)

I think it's more complex than checking twice. You can't check twice for something that doesn't exist on a record but should, for example. How would you know what to look for?

[ Parent | on HN ]