Hacker News Reader

No, this is dumb:

> required the prosecution to prove that a computer was operating properly at the relevant time before a document produced by such a computer could be admitted as evidence.

But I'm sure you actually mean to agree, and that your comment was just garbled in transit. :)

View on HN

It's over simplification of a nuanced situation. Over simplification in either direction is a problem.

A presumption is not a simplification of anything. It is a starting point.

That's fair. But as the article shows, that presumption ends up weighing heavily in favor of computers working correctly. The nuance is in the difference between plumbing, which generally works well, and the bespoke business logic of individual applications, especially when said logic was responsible for the existence of critical evidence in a criminal case. The difference matters enormously and is not observed at all in the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com