
The use of the word ‘robust' to describe software in UK law - fanf2
https://ials.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2019/06/25/the-use-of-the-word-robust-to-describe-software-code/
======
raymondh
IIRC, common law also presumes that snail mail is robust.

The idea is that it is common for someone to deny receiving a mailed
notification but that it is uncommon for mail to actually be lost. So, it
makes sense to presume that the mail was successfully delivered unless there
is evidence to the contrary (i.e. other mail to nearby addresses was also
undelivered due to a weather condition).

My take on the UK law is that software is presumed to work unless an actual
bug can be demonstrated.

~~~
StillBored
(US based) I'm a human snail mail spam filter... It is possible for me to have
physically received the mail, but promptly tossed it because the volume of ads
and spam dwarfs actual mail. I've also found unopened mail in my trash by
accident because it was tucked inside of supermarket flyers/etc that were
tossed.

So, its quite likely that both cases are true, if you consider that there is a
difference between physical reception of the mail and actual knowledge of what
was sent.

I'm not really sure what the solution is, except maybe to pass more laws that
keep the spammers from trying to make their mail look like official business
(which is common because it increases the number of people that open the
mail).

~~~
meowface
Same here. 98% of my mail is spam. I receive far, far more physical mail spam
than email spam. (I'm sure the total volume of email spam sent to me is way
higher than the physical mail spam's, but the email spam filters catch almost
all of it.)

I've definitely accidentally thrown out some real mail which was wedged inside
of some kind of spam ad.

------
snops
I believe the trial it refers to is a civil class action case relating to the
UK Post Office "Horizon" IT system, which falsely accused hundreds of
postmasters (managers of local post offices) of theft. This case was settled
this month, ruling against the post office to the tune of £57.75m [1].

The very lengthy judgement[2], does have an appendix going into technical
detail, and page 17 onwards contains an interesting and long discussion of
"the meaning of 'robustness' ".

[1]
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/12/12/post_office_horizon...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/12/12/post_office_horizon_case_settled/)
[2] [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-...](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-post-office-judgment.pdf)

~~~
bitminer
The Post Office has successfully framed the (perception of the) case using
completely ambiguous terms.

The Court has fallen for the strategy and wasted many hours splitting hairs on
the meaning of the word "robust".

A better choice would have been "verifiably correct", since that requires a
verification process and a definitive set of statements defining correctness.

A competent system engineer of 6 months experience could have pointed that out
in a heartbeat. But, lawyers being lawyers....

------
ClumsyPilot
Every time I see a case like this I am horrified the that it takes decades,
still there is virtually no compensation for the victims.

To me the evidence of failure on the post-office side looks absolutely
damning, including third party audits and physical impossibilities.

" The auditor supposedly witness all transactions for half a day and witness
Horizon being short, thereby corroborating her account and also now a
potential witness for her"

"Horizon generated a shortfall of £9,000 over Christmas and New Year 2009, a
period when her post office branch was closed."

This goes way beyond presumption of robustness, the first time any of this
evidence saw the light of day, that should have been the end of it.

Also the court seems to be full of people making statements to the system's
robustness who have no business doing so - they appear to present no evidence,
know nothing about development process and have no qualifications. Please
point out if I am getting this wrong.

------
sudeepj
Unrelated: What's with the text color/contrast? Am I the only one who has
trouble reading the text?

~~~
rogual
No, it's really bad.

~~~
josteink
Firefox reader mode. Instantly fixes any shitty CSS. Learn to love it.

~~~
cvs268
...aaand here's how to justify the text in reader-view for that final bit of
perfection.

[https://twitter.com/cvs26/status/1206607533617471489](https://twitter.com/cvs26/status/1206607533617471489)

~~~
manicpolymath
Here’s the link in the linked tweet:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21803859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21803859)

