Hacker News Reader

The article makes a strong case otherwise. Proving a system built and maintained by a large, well heeled entity is unlikely to be possible for all except other large, well heeled entities.

How are you supposed to get the evidence in a situation like this?

It's not like they're going to give you the keys to the server room.

> This is just an assumption that generally, computers are doing what they're supposed to.

It's more than that. You don't have to instruct a jury that they have to accept that a person does what they're supposed to do unless proven otherwise... unless that person wrote code for a computer.

But every single digital artifact is questionable. It's inconvenient but it's also true.

Your point is valid. But it does sound like a barrier to entry. In the sense of, increasing fixed costs for access to the legal system on a fair basis