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

341–350 of 434 posts

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

#341

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> an apparent implicit economic calculation that one programmer-year is more valuable than the freedom that is being denied to an unknown number of people whom society deems less important

I’m surprised this doesn’t create a massive liability for the state.

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

#342

Post by lazyasciiart »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #331
omginternets wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How do you propose for an inmate to contact his representation?

Mail, or asking another prisoner with communication to the outside to ask their contact to call the lawyer and have them come visit.

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

#343

Post by sterlind »

er4hn wrote: post #95
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 advice appears based on deficiencies in programming however. Programs operate on algorithms to process data. When the programs or algorithms fail to be able to do so properly the program is at fault. In your cases you have items like: accounting, building codes, tax codes, automobile codes, etc. While it makes sense to try and harmonize with the general policies, every state, every municipality, and every busine…

My dad actually created a (failed) startup in the early '00s that modeled immigration law in Prolog, enabling the creation of legally accurate forms and resolving complex legal queries. It was a good idea, it just failed due to infighting and mismanagement.

are there popular languages for implementing these types of DSLs?

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

#344

Post by bigiain »

ryandrake wrote: post #145
toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corrections management is who I would consider the directly responsible party, not corrections ICs (to be clear, no scapegoats). The buck stops somewhere when we’re talking about infringing on someone’s right to freedom. Excuses are unacceptable.

The buck seems to stop at the computer/AI nowadays, in an alarmingly growing number institutions and companies. And you can't punish a computer or hold an AI accountable. This seems to be an end state desired by people who were previously accountable.

It'd be nice if the rules said that if decisions are pushed off to "the computer", then whoever authorised the use of that computer/software is "responsible" for its errors.

In a situation where "computer says 'No!'" but the law says 'Yes', whoever signed off on the purchase/maintannces of that computer should be held as responsible as if they'd made that decision themselves.

There should be a very simple and obvious answer for any of these over-incarcerated inmates to the question "Who, as in which individual person, do I point an ambulance chasing no win no fee lawyer at for a compensation claim?"

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

#345

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#346

Post by oftenwrong »

readams wrote: post #82
undecisive wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the problem with silver bullets like YAGNI: Laws change, if your system is dependent on laws, then you can be sure that new rules will need to be added. You need a system that is configurable, you can be sure you are going to need it. Of course, if there's money to be made in having a change-resistant system, well that's a different story. YAGNIAYWPTTNFI (You ARE gonna need it, and you will pay through the nose…

You'd need a configuration system that is so general it would become a programming language. And then nobody could configure it except the original programmers because now your rules are written in the weird badly-designed programming language you developed.

AKA The Inner-Platform Effect

https://thedailywtf.com/articles/The_Inner-Platform_Effect

I have worked on a few systems that would serve as prime examples.

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

#347

Post by omginternets »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #331
omginternets wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How do you propose for an inmate to contact his representation?

Presumably by saying something like "I understand my phone privileged have been revoked, but I need to contact my lawyer", at which point the authority in question would recognize that this constitutes an exception to said revocation.

You know ... the obvious way.

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

#348

Post by elihu »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #341
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…

> an apparent implicit economic calculation that one programmer-year is more valuable than the freedom that is being denied to an unknown number of people whom society deems less important I’m surprised this doesn’t create a massive liability for the state.

Yeah, I'd assume this would be resolved real quick if the state (or the contractor responsible for the software) had to pay out, say, $100 per inmate per day that they improperly spent in jail past the end of their sentence.

That this problem is allowed to persist seems like an indication that the people in charge believe that prisoners have a low probability of successfully suing the state for damages.

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

#349

Post by chordalkeyboard »

omginternets wrote: post #347
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose for an inmate to contact his representation?

Presumably by saying something like "I understand my phone privileged have been revoked, but I need to contact my lawyer", at which point the authority in question would recognize that this constitutes an exception to said revocation. You know ... the obvious way.

> at which point the authority in question would recognize that this constitutes an exception to said revocation.

I think you misunderstand the nature of authority by thinking that they would recognize this as an exception.

> You know ... the obvious way.

Whats obvious here is that an incarcerated person only has the options that the carceral state permits to them.

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

#350

Post by kodah »

derefr wrote: post #337
kodah wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and responsibility! You won't get this though. If the machines are the only ones capable of making the calculations with less error then a human can only validate higher level criteria. Things like "responsibility" and "accountability" become very vague words in these scenarios, so be specific. A human should be able to trace calculations software makes through auditing. The software will need to be good at indicat…

The human isn't there to check the computer's work; the human is there to look for overriding special-case circumstances the computer can't understand, i.e. executing act-utilitarianism where the computer on its own would be executing rule-utilitarianism. Usually, in any case where a bureaucracy could generate a Kafkaesque nightmare scenario, just forcing a human being to actually decide whether to implement the comp…

I never disagreed with the idea that humans should be involved. I was concerned about the use of "responsible".

Let's be specific who you're comparing a judge to though. A guard, social worker, or bureaucrat with the guard being most likely. A guard probably has a lot of things to do on any given day, administrative exercises would only be part of them. The same could be said of a social worker. This is why I cautioned against making someone who is likely underpaid and doesn't have much time capital "responsible" for something as important as how long someone stays in the system.

Post reply on HN