You might be far removed from the implications of doing a poor job but that doesn’t mean everyone else is.
The fact that software is involved is in some ways a side issue - and while I do agree we as techies do need to consider the responsibility that we have, I'm equally frustrated how the narrative in the Post Office case has been deliberately shifted towards "it was because the software had bugs" as opposed to "multiple people in charge were deliberately deceitful and behaved completely reprehensibly".
This is borne out by the UK government's attempted shift of all the responsibility on to Fujitsu in the Post Office case (who are absolutely not blameless) while trying to push attention away from the Post Office's - and by extension the government's - own considerable culpability.
I'm sure they'll seek to do the same in this Ofsted situation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/26/sir-geoff-mu...
The whole thing was a shambles and there was no scrutiny from the start.
I do agree with you that Ofsted will likely use the same deflection tactics.
It is a failure of all of the humans involved. Whether it is inadequate acceptance testing, prematurely closed bug reports, optimizing for [unreasonable] timelines, or lack of oversight (and to be clear, I am not advocating for micromanagement).
I feel both of these statements are true: 1) certain people bear more fault than others and 2) developers aren't blameless.
I would like us to reduce our "blame surface area" with a reasonable amount of effort over what we _can_ control.
Firstly, in UK law there is an implicit assumption that computers are "reliable". This means that the burden of proof is on the accused proving the software has bugs, rather than them being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
That means in the Post Office example, people were convicted because they couldn't prove the software had bugs, they were just saying "you have to prove I'm guilty, because I'm not", and the court said "no, we don't, computers are reliable and that proves you are lying and therefore guilty".
In the Ofsted case, given that schools can be put into special measures, teachers and headteachers fired, and in one case a headteacher killed herself because of the data collected and decision made on it, if those systems are not reliable they are not fit for purpose, because it turns the innocent into victims in terms of criminal, and civil employment law.
There have been calls for this assumption to be changed [1], but right now: if you are innocent but a piece of software says you are guilty, in the UK the burden of proof falls to you, regardless of how awful the people, their processes and conduct are on the other side.
Secondly, there's a deeper moral issue here. Engineers are arguably aiding and abetting. It is almost certainly the case that engineers working on Horizon and Ofsted systems did not tell all the truth all the time at the bequest of their managers and other colleagues throughout all this.
"Just doing my job", is the excuse of the scoundrel. I do not buy it. If you're complicit with despicable people, you're complicit. End of.
Yes, UK HMG has answers to give, culpability and responsibility, but let's not pretend that engineers built terrible systems, didn't have to face any consequences, and were enabled by arse covering exercises further up the chain.
We can - and must - do better than this.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-o...
Not sure this is true, people were mainly convicted because they pleaded guilty to avoid going to jail.
There may be instances where you are correct but I'm not aware of any? The general rule of being innocent unless proven guilty does, generally, hold. The issue with these cases is that many people convicted early on had no proper legal representation.
Alan Bates, for instance, refused to accept the charges and was never convicted because no evidence of his guilt was ever presented. He stood his ground and was an outlier case.
I'm also annoyed at how the Guardian is parroting the "made up" term, which is a terrible misrepresentation of "relying on your memory of the events".
Speaking of decision-helping tools, there has been a French law for some years now : for any administrative use of them, the target citizen can request the algorithm to be explained to them in clear language.
(I already have my popcorn ready for the inevitable clash with the fiscal inspection, which not only tends to operate as if laws didn't apply to them, but also I hear started using neural networks, which have basically no way to conform to this requirement.)
There's a world of difference between human fallibility, and knowingly doing evil as part of one's job. I won't call the bricklayer evil if someone builds a 10-story skyscraper [1] atop his humble garden shed foundation, that ends up collapsing and killing everyone inside.
[1] To make the analogy perfectly clear - the skyscraper is not the software, but the persecution based on assuming the software is infallible.
This really is an incredibly stupid law. I could see assuming that computers are correctly operating as _instructed_ (e.g. the cpu doesn’t have bugs), but assuming that software is implemented correctly is just crazy. Everyone knows that software is buggy and updates are released all the time. Declaring that software is infallible is ridiculous.
The first store had been the first to get a new model register. And the new model tended to slurp bills out of the till if you closed it too hard.
So this isn't a new software thing. It's a problem with a management culture that shifts blame rather than get to the root of the problem.
If they'd been like "oh, a bug. We'll fix it" then there would be no issue.
just cause you're an ant here doesn't make you ethically culpable.
this is bad practice by service integrators