[SystemSafety] a discursion stimulated by recent discussions of alleged safety-critical software faults in automobile software

[Martyn Thomas]

(I'm writing this in England. We don't have a constitution that
guarantees freedom-of-expression. Indeed, we have become a favourite
destination for libel tourists. )

Let's suppose that in a purely fictional sequence of events, a
manufacturer that develops and sells safety-related consumer products
installs some very badly written software in one of their products:
software that could lead to injury or death. Let's further suppose that
an accident happens that, when investigated, turns out to be of the sort
that the bad software could have caused.

Let's speculate that n this fictional case, the manufacturer suffers
serious penalties and as a result vows to write much better software in
future, changes their development methods, significantly reduces the
likelihood of safety-related errors in their future products, and (by
acting as a warning to others of the consequences) influences other
companies to make similar improvements.

That would be a lot of good things that resulted from the discovery of
the badly-written software and most or all of them might not have
happened if the bad software had been discovered without an accident and
a finding of liability.

Of course, this is fiction and the good outcomes described above are
hypothetical.

But a man can dream and, if such a set of circumstances were ever to
arise, why would I care whether the bad software did actually cause the
accident?

Martyn