Category: Bug

Posted on

If software were a military weapon

Software manufacturing is often compared to car building, and there are plenty of such analogies available, ranging from jokes to serious analysis.

A less considered match is the manufacturing of military weapons in contrast to sport weapons.

The history of the US Army contest that led Beretta to a winning over the German-Swiss Sig Sauer, thus securing the Italian company a rich supply contract of the “92” (renamed “M9” in the US Army naming system) is revealing.

The M9 was “the” most reliable gun in the market, being able to fire thousands of bullets without malfunctions, though enough to stand against the harshest environmental conditions and easy to both operate and maintains. Soldiers could rely upon this weapon to have the job done and not being let alone in critical moments.

How many software (from firmware, to operating systems, to platforms) are built like a Beretta M9?

Posted on

Autonomous-driving and liability: a brief taxonomy

Summary: If you really want to regulate the field of autonomous driving, it would be better to establish – at last – the criminal responsibility of those who produce software and put an end to those shameful clauses of the user licenses that say that “software is as is, and not suitable for use in critical areas”.

Discussing with Prof. Alessandro Cortesi on Linkedin, an interesting debate emerged on the boundaries of legal responsibility for autonomous driving and on the relevance of ethical choices in the instructions to be given to the on-board computer of the vehicle to manage an accident.

Personally, in such a case, I find the use of ethics useless and dangerous.

Ethics is an individual fact which, through the political mediation of representatives of groups that share their own ethics, is translated into legally binding rules. If the State deals personally with ethics, it opens the door to crucifixions, burning and gas chambers.

On the “decision” in case of an accident: it is not the computer that “decides” but the man who programmed it that, (even if only as a possible malice / conscious guilt) takes responsibility for the degrees of autonomy (not decision) left to the software.

It is a fundamental and indispensable point not to transfer the legal consequences of behaviour from people to things.

Automatic driving cannot be allowed in such a way as to violate by default the laws that regulate driviing (conduct which, as it complies with the law, is presumed to be harmless).

The point, if anything, is the management of the extraordinary event (classic pedestrian that suddenly crosses): in this case – once again – the theme is the mal-functioning of the hardware or the bad conception, programming, interaction of the software, neither more nor less than what would happen in case of breakage of another component.

Moreover, when the machine loses control, there is no computer that can oppose the laws of physics.

Posted on

We are all beta-tester… Still.

I firmly disagree with ? David Pogue’s Scientific American column dating back to November, 2014 where the journalist wrote:

 ?Part of our disgruntlement at being served flawed software probably stems from our conception of software itself-as something that is, in fact, finishable. Software used to come in boxes, bearing version numbers. We understood each as a milestone-a program frozen in stone.

But nowadays software is a living, constantly evolving entity. Consider phone apps: nobody seems to mind that new versions pour out constantly, sometimes many times a year. Or Web sites: they’re software, too, and they’re perpetually changing.

Maybe that’s why Adobe no longer produces boxed, numbered versions of Photoshop; instead the only way to get Photoshop is to subscribe to its steady evolution all year long.

Maybe it’s time to stop thinking about traditional programs any differently. Maybe we should get rid of frozen, numbered editions, much as Adobe has done.

That wouldn’t eliminate the frustration of bugginess, but at least we would comprehend software’s true nature: a product that is never finished.

The fact that software is an ever-evolving product (and not – as we in the EU say, a “copyrighted work”) doesn’t imply that it is fair to put on the market ? a piece of crap, telling peopole that “we’ll clean the toilet with the next version”. Because in the meantime, the stink… stinks.

 

Posted on

Apple and the (unrequired) Safety by Design

An individual is ultimately ? responsible for the use of a technology. This is, in a few words, the conclusion of a ? decision issued by the 6th Appelate District of the California Court of Appeal.

The merit of the controversy was a legal action taken by the victims of a car accident against Apple accused – said the plaintiff – of infringing a duty of care in the designing FaceTime so that it didn’t stop working when users drive a car, thus distracting the driver a causing the accident.

In rejecting the claim, the Court ? found that not preventing the use of FaceTime while driving neither is matter of duty of care does nor constitute a proximate cause of injuries suffered in a car crash. Continue reading “Apple and the (unrequired) Safety by Design”

Posted on

“Blame the algorithm”: the new mantra of social irresponsibility


Computer says no! is the mantra that one of Little Britain’s most famous characters, Carol Beer, the artificially-intelligent banker repeats every time a customer asks her an out-of-the-ordinary question.

Those who – like me – are old enough, have lost count of how many times a clerk working for a public or private entity answered alike – in terms and tones – Carol Beer. Computer says no, it is computer’s fault; the computer does not allow this task to be performed… these reactions are but a way to partake the  software designers (and their masters) from the liability of having built a crappy software. A machine that in its stupid rigidity would not allow doing what the user is asking—an extremely convenient way to ensure that nobody pays for the inefficiencies, delays and follies of bureaucracy. Continue reading ““Blame the algorithm”: the new mantra of social irresponsibility”