Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

kjzz.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 434 posts

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#321

Post by rsj_hn »

elihu wrote: post #290

> “When they legislate these things, they need to be appropriating enough money to make sure they work,” a source said. They estimated fixing the SB1310 bug would take roughly 2,000 additional programming hours. 40 hours a week times 52 weeks is 2080 hours. Subtract a few weeks for vacations and holidays, and you get a little less that 2000 hours. So, basically, this is a little more than one programmer-year of effor…

> It's gross that the decision not to fix this carries an apparent implicit economic calculation

Spending money will remain economic decision until we can have government agencies fueled by the righteous indignation of their critics rather than having a line item added to their budget. Until you can convert that indignation into legal tender, agencies will remain subject to old fashioned accounting constraints.

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#322

Post by boomboomsubban »

alex_young wrote: post #304

Isn't this clearly defined false imprisonment under Arizona law? Here's the relevant statute: 13-1303. Unlawful imprisonment; classification; definition A. A person commits unlawful imprisonment by knowingly restraining another person. B. In any prosecution for unlawful imprisonment, it is a defense that: 1. The restraint was accomplished by a peace officer or detention officer acting in good faith in the lawful perf…

Their list is of people eligible for a program that would give them an early release, so unless the inmate enrolls the prison would be acting in good faith. Almost like the law was intentionally worded to limit their liability.

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#323

Post by mulmen »

omginternets wrote: post #317
WalterBright wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a prisoner knows he's past his release date, can't he contact his lawyer?

I'm worried this question might get written off. I would actually like to know the answer to this as well. My immediate reaction is that either (1) it is possible, and the story is therefore more nuanced that might appear at first glance, or (2) it is not possible, and this is an even more egregious problem.

The comment that spawned this thread is here and suggests phone privileges can also be taken away by mistake in this system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26227031

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#324

Post by mattmcknight »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #275
mattmcknight wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the pay scale for state software developers never (I almost never say never) has a proper differential over other employees with the same level of experience, meaning they are often below 10th percentile of market rate, and thus the employees that end up in those jobs tend to be among the least skilled and motivated people I've ever dealt with. Even though contractors mess up, you can fire them. What's…

Isn't this what USDS and 18F are for?

I thought they were pitched as a service opportunity. Regardless, it's a small team that only operates at the federal level, state and local budgets are much more limited.

"Salaries at USDS vary, but don’t exceed $170,800, determined by your experience and skills." So, they do have a relatively low top salary, but it is very difficult to do any salary for the government based on skills versus age (disguised as years of experience). At best you might find adjustments for degrees earned, which don't translate well to actual value.

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#325

Post by dragonwriter »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #319
reillyse wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This appears to me to be a terrible idea. In effect you would have private companies writing the laws of the land. "I'm sorry California you can't change your laws because it doesn't fit into the three options we have available at our preferred software vendor". Seems like the tail wagging the dog.

Login.gov cribbed off of the UK’s digital office that built a similar system. I believe that’s what OP was alluding too. How many unemployment systems, prisoner tracking systems, DMV systems do you need? These are common components across governments. Example: Login.gov now supports local and state government partners. Your constituent IAM needs can now be met by a federal team that is efficient and competent, instea…

> Example: Login.gov now supports local and state government partners. Congrats, your constituent IAM needs can now be met by a federal team that is efficient and competent.

Outside of functions that are joint state-federal to start with, states tend to treat the federal government as just another outside sovereign (and one whose Administration is intermittently actively politically hostile), which is worse than a private contractor in terms of being able to get them to uphold their end of a contract.

So, not someone you’d outsource to unless you were more concerned about having someone else to blame if things go wrong than actually being able to assure that things go right.

> How many unemployment systems, prisoner tracking systems, DMV systems do you need? These are common components across governments.

Mostly, not, because while the names may be the same, the actual laws setting the system requirements tend to be radically different.

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#326

Post by parsecs »

mulmen wrote: post #320

Could something like this be fixed by leveraging the existing incentives? Something like if an inmate challenges the output of the system then they will automatically be released in, say, 90 days unless the output of the system can be validated manually, perhaps by a third party? Suddenly there is an incentive to create a verifiable and correct system on the part of the prison-industrial complex itself.

There doesn't seem to be any incentive against challenging, so what's to prevent some black box bureaucratic software pipeline to take in any challenge and automatically label them as "verified"?

Any "third party" that doesn't belong to the prison-industrial complex becomes part of it if they get involved with this.

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#327

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #325
toomuchtodo wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Login.gov cribbed off of the UK’s digital office that built a similar system. I believe that’s what OP was alluding too. How many unemployment systems, prisoner tracking systems, DMV systems do you need? These are common components across governments. Example: Login.gov now supports local and state government partners. Your constituent IAM needs can now be met by a federal team that is efficient and competent, instea…

> Example: Login.gov now supports local and state government partners. Congrats, your constituent IAM needs can now be met by a federal team that is efficient and competent. Outside of functions that are joint state-federal to start with, states tend to treat the federal government as just another outside sovereign (and one whose Administration is intermittently actively politically hostile), which is worse than a pr…

[deleted]

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#328

Post by omginternets »

mulmen wrote: post #323
omginternets wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm worried this question might get written off. I would actually like to know the answer to this as well. My immediate reaction is that either (1) it is possible, and the story is therefore more nuanced that might appear at first glance, or (2) it is not possible, and this is an even more egregious problem.

The comment that spawned this thread is here and suggests phone privileges can also be taken away by mistake in this system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26227031

I know very little about the prison system, but surely the suspension of phone privileged cannot prevent an inmate from contacting his legal representation, right?

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#329

Post by boomboomsubban »

reillyse wrote: post #314
jdeibele wrote: post #76

When I wanted to have compiled [1] financials, PriceWaterhouseCoopers told me to pick a recognized accounting system, then change the company's business processes to match that. They said absolutely not to go the other way, to try to customize any software to match our business. I think about that every time I read about another government (or private!) company that wastes tens or hundreds of million of dollars (or e…

This appears to me to be a terrible idea. In effect you would have private companies writing the laws of the land. "I'm sorry California you can't change your laws because it doesn't fit into the three options we have available at our preferred software vendor". Seems like the tail wagging the dog.

You can solve this problem pretty easily by using free software projects.

Re: Whistleblowers: Software keeping inmates in Arizona prisons beyond release dates

#330

Post by chordalkeyboard »

alex_young wrote: post #304

Isn't this clearly defined false imprisonment under Arizona law? Here's the relevant statute: 13-1303. Unlawful imprisonment; classification; definition A. A person commits unlawful imprisonment by knowingly restraining another person. B. In any prosecution for unlawful imprisonment, it is a defense that: 1. The restraint was accomplished by a peace officer or detention officer acting in good faith in the lawful perf…

You’re assuming that agents of the government are expected to follow their own laws. Those laws are for you and me, not our beknighted public servants.
Post reply on HN