The first bizarre part to me about this fiasco is that accounting, as a discipline, is one that is designed to catch errors. Put it another way: it assumes errors will occur. This is why in shops, for example, you'll have manual stocktaking (ie let's verify what's in the store is what the computer thinks is in the store) and in any business you'll have reconciliation processes to find and remedy errors.
This highlights a key part of systems design. A key question you should be asking is: what happens when this fails? Note that's "when" not "if".
So something like Horizon should be used to flag cases for reviews. If a branch is found ot have a cash shortfall suggesting possible theft then there has to be a reconciliation possible to identify if the computer system was wrong.
Bugs happen too. How do they ever have confidence in the system and fix bugs if they can't determine if a given flag is a false or true positive?
But instead the system's output was taken as gospel with no possibility of verification. I'm of the belief that if you can't verify anything the system outputs, particularly for something in a discipline so used to verification as a concept, then that signal is worthless. The fact that convictions happened as a result of this is a crime. This is the UK and not the US so sadly that compensation will probably be limited to nonexistent.
As an aside, this is exactly why electronic voting should be outlawed. You need paper ballots (that can be counted electronically) as a verification measure. And the fact that we even have to debate that makes me sad.
Nationally regulated, sure. Verified with a physical copy (or a different system), sure. But banned altogether? You might as well ban everything in the world that is digital, as none of them are fool-proof.
Voting isn't even that important. The wrong guy gets picked, what happens? Same bullshit as if the right guy got picked. If your choices are "Hitler" or "Jesus", then your system is just fucked up, and making voting fool-proof isn't the way to fix it.
In addition, electronic voting would be a boon to democracy. It would provide another avenue for maligned minorities in remote areas be able to vote, when things like paper ballot voting in the middle of a pandemic might fail or be error-prone (esp. when a fascist fucks with the postal system), or local authorities enforce racist requirements like a physical ID card.
If you vote on a touch screen and it prints out a paper ballot, that's fine as long as that's a legible ballot, like not just a QR code or something. The voter should have confidence in the output.
Likewise, if you use a pen or pencil to fill out a ballot that then is counted electronically, that too is fine.
In both cases there's a paper ballot as a source of truth and that's what's key.
> Voting isn't even that important. The wrong guy gets picked, what happens? Same bullshit as if the right guy got picked.
If voting is unimportant, why do you care about racist requirements for physical ID cards? Perhaps there might be some sort of connexion between the two!
It's more important that you are able to participate than what the result is. Better to have an insecure system where 10 million people get to vote, than a secure system where only 10 people get to vote.
This highlights a key part of systems design. A key question you should be asking is: what happens when this fails? Note that's "when" not "if".
So something like Horizon should be used to flag cases for reviews. If a branch is found ot have a cash shortfall suggesting possible theft then there has to be a reconciliation possible to identify if the computer system was wrong.
Bugs happen too. How do they ever have confidence in the system and fix bugs if they can't determine if a given flag is a false or true positive?
But instead the system's output was taken as gospel with no possibility of verification. I'm of the belief that if you can't verify anything the system outputs, particularly for something in a discipline so used to verification as a concept, then that signal is worthless. The fact that convictions happened as a result of this is a crime. This is the UK and not the US so sadly that compensation will probably be limited to nonexistent.
As an aside, this is exactly why electronic voting should be outlawed. You need paper ballots (that can be counted electronically) as a verification measure. And the fact that we even have to debate that makes me sad.