Designing Systems for Dispute Resolution

英格兰和威尔士的法院认为计算机工作正常，除非证明并非如此。因此，系统或计算机产生的任何证据也被认为是可靠的。这一推定妨碍了当事人试图对电子证据提出异议，而且往往是不可能克服的。当电子证据的可靠性受到质疑时，举证责任落在反对方身上。这一方往往缺乏对他们试图争议的制度的访问和了解，并面临着难以克服的困难。Horizon Post Office丑闻的案例清楚地表明了这一推定的缺陷。邮局根据会计系统Horizon提供的证据，错误地起诉了数百名邮局负责人和员工。对Horizon正确性的挑战不能反驳可靠性的假设，以及任何被错误地归因于盗窃或欺诈的可能由软件错误引起的缺陷。这项法律推定在实践中应用时，一直是造成普遍不公正的原因，并可能在其他质疑计算机证据可靠性的情况下引发类似的问题，例如在薪酬纠纷中。我们迫切需要重新评估这项推定，以防止进一步的不公正。这个项目是关于如何设计系统来提供它们自己的正确性以及它们产生的任何数据的正确性的证据。如果一个系统的可靠性受到质疑，它将能够提供文件，证明对被质疑证据的指控是合理的或反驳的。如果关键系统(那些有可能在法庭案件中产生数据的系统)纳入了这种设计，那么推定仍然可以按照预期的方式发挥作用，而不会给任何一方带来不必要的举证责任。

Courts, in England and Wales, consider computers to have been working correctly unless proven otherwise. Therefore, any evidence produced by the system or computer is considered reliable as well. This presumption stands in the way of a party attempting to dispute electronic evidence and is often impossible to overcome. When the reliability of electronic evidence is called into question the burden of proof is on the objecting party. This party often lacks access and knowledge of the system they are trying to dispute and faces insurmountable difficulties. The case of the Horizon Post Office scandal is a clear demonstration of the shortcomings of this presumption. The Post Office falsely prosecuted hundreds of postmasters and employees based on evidence produced by the accounting system Horizon. Challenges to Horizon's correctness could not rebut the presumption of reliability and any identified shortcomings that could have been caused by software errors, were incorrectly attributed to theft or fraud. The legal presumption, when applied in practice, has been the cause of widespread injustice and could raise similar issues in other situations where the reliability of computer evidence is questioned, such as in payment disputes.There is a serious need for the presumption to be reassessed to prevent further injustices. This project is about how systems can be designed to provide evidence of their own correctness and the correctness of any data they produce. If a system is put in a position where its reliability is called into question, it will be able to produce documents that can justify or disprove accusations against the evidence being questioned. If critical systems (ones that have a likelihood of producing data in a court case) incorporate this kind of design, then the presumption can still function in the way it was intended without putting an undue burden of proof on either party.