"(this is a lie, other people are having the same problem and they know this)" So this is fraud, and makes the validate nature of a program immaterial. If they are willing to lie about this, they can produce false logs that show their system is working.
But if Bob, kept records, of his transaction, and could show an irregularity between the his records and theirs this could be used as evidence of a faulty system an warrant further investigation.
But you listed another issue that the law wouldn't help, the police don't believe Bob, they don't investigate, The courts don't believe bob.
I don't see how you think this different finding would change that.
In almost any case, if the cops don't believe you, and the court doesn't believe you, you are going to get screwed.
If Bob was a fraudster, any records kept by Bob would also be fraudulets, so he can't use them as evidence.
Would that really be true? In a trial, I would expect part of the proceedings to include arguing to the jury that these records or those records are more reliable. Just because Bob is accused of fraud shouldn't automatically make his records inadmissable...
Well they could likely be admitted, depending on the context that they were admitted, this is where shit gets complex in legal matters, if there is a legal expert they maybe able to field this better
They don't even need to produce false records/logs if the courts believe that any computer system is working as intended without evidence that it isn't then they don't need to produce any records as the court will already accept their computers result as correct.
previously they would have, which was the point I was going after, its moot.
additionally, if bob kept a personal leisure that didn't not reconcile with their system, or if bob reached out to other branches and had others make the same complaint, both of those could be used to cause the company to defend their system.
Comments
"(this is a lie, other people are having the same problem and they know this)" So this is fraud, and makes the validate nature of a program immaterial. If they are willing to lie about this, they can produce false logs that show their system is working.
But if Bob, kept records, of his transaction, and could show an irregularity between the his records and theirs this could be used as evidence of a faulty system an warrant further investigation.
But you listed another issue that the law wouldn't help, the police don't believe Bob, they don't investigate, The courts don't believe bob.
I don't see how you think this different finding would change that.
In almost any case, if the cops don't believe you, and the court doesn't believe you, you are going to get screwed.
If Bob was a fraudster, any records kept by Bob would also be fraudulets, so he can't use them as evidence.
He would have to produce material proof of a kind he could not easilly forge - maybe hours of CCTV footage poiting at the till?
Would that really be true? In a trial, I would expect part of the proceedings to include arguing to the jury that these records or those records are more reliable. Just because Bob is accused of fraud shouldn't automatically make his records inadmissable...
Well they could likely be admitted, depending on the context that they were admitted, this is where shit gets complex in legal matters, if there is a legal expert they maybe able to field this better
I probably shouldn't have said the word evidence, but I didn't mean as evidence as a part of his defense, but to justify further investigation.
They don't even need to produce false records/logs if the courts believe that any computer system is working as intended without evidence that it isn't then they don't need to produce any records as the court will already accept their computers result as correct.
previously they would have, which was the point I was going after, its moot.
additionally, if bob kept a personal leisure that didn't not reconcile with their system, or if bob reached out to other branches and had others make the same complaint, both of those could be used to cause the company to defend their system.
Again, if bob is believed by the courts.