Designing Systems for Dispute Resolution

在英格兰和威尔士，除非有其他证据，否则法院会认为电脑一直在正常工作。因此，系统或计算机产生的任何证据也被认为是可靠的。这种假设阻碍了一方试图对电子证据提出异议，而且往往是无法克服的。当电子证据的可靠性受到质疑时，举证责任由异议方承担。这一方往往无法接触和了解他们试图提出异议的制度，面临着难以克服的困难。地平线邮局丑闻的案例清楚地证明了这种假设的缺陷。根据会计系统Horizon提供的证据，邮局错误地起诉了数百名邮政局长和雇员。对Horizon正确性的质疑无法反驳对可靠性的假设，任何可能由软件错误引起的已识别缺陷都被错误地归因于盗窃或欺诈。法律上的推定，在实际应用时，是造成广泛不公正的原因，并可能在计算机证据的可靠性受到质疑的其他情况下引起类似的问题，例如在付款纠纷中。迫切需要重新评估这一推定，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和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，它将能够提出文件，证明或反驳对受到质疑的证据的指控。如果关键系统（那些有可能在法庭案件中产生数据的系统）采用这种设计，那么假设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.