Text File

RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Tuesday, 15 December 1987 Volume 5 : Issue 75

FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

Contents: Advice to the Risklorn (Steven McBride) Expert systems liability (George S. Cole via Martin Minow, George Bray, Dean Sutherland, Bjorn Freeman-Benson, William Swan, Wm Brown III) Microprocessors vs relay logic (Wm Brown III)

The RISKS Forum is moderated. Contributions should be relevant, sound, in good taste, objective, coherent, concise, nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome. Contributions to RISKS@CSL.SRI.COM, Requests to RISKS-Request@CSL.SRI.COM. For Vol i issue j, FTP SRI.COM, CD STRIPE:<RISKS>, GET RISKS-i.j. Volume summaries for each i in max j: (i,j) = (1,46),(2,57),(3,92),(4,97).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 87 10:40:20 pst From: Steven McBride <shamus@BOEING.COM> To: risks@csl.sri.com Subject: Advice to the Risklorn

Franklynn Peterson and Judi K-Turkel in their newspaper column "The Business Computer" {(c) 1987 P. K. Associates, Inc.} discuss computer problems with banks, phone companies, and supermarkets. The discussion on phone billing which follows was new to me -

Ripped off by computer mistake? Fight back

. . . Before computerization, your phone company didn't charge you if nobody picked up at the other end. Now, if there's a busy signal or no answer to your ring, you may get charged for a one-minute call. Unless you keep track of all your calls you may never even notice it. Has your bill ever shown two different minute-long phone calls made during the same minute of the same day? Ours has. It's a dead giveaway. It proves our servicer's computer can't tell a non-answer from a completed call. Many states have watchdog public service commissions. Ours specifies that we can't be charged for calls that reach nobody. But it also lets the phone company bill us incorrectly. The burden's on us to go through each bill circle all disputed charges, and write letters explaining why we're not paying them. These charges can mount up fast if you're phoning via computer. . . . . . Here's what's sad about all these computer-made annoyances: They're unnecessary. These very computers are capable of doing consumer- pleasing tasks at a penny a job. Why don't they? Because whoever bought them, programmed them, and manages them obviously doesn't want a system that can help customers. They want what's fastest or cheapest to design, easiest to manage, and most profitable for the firm. How can we change things? By joining in making the status quo grimmer than the task or reprogramming to give better service. We changed supermarkets when our once-favorite store refused to give pre-checkout pricing clues. We deduct from our phone bills all one-minute calls, putting the burden on the long distance carrier to show it any were completed. And when we clear up a blunder our bank's computer makes, we bill them a service charge. You're welcome to join us!

------------------------------

From: minow%thundr.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Martin Minow THUNDR::MINOW ML3-5/U26 223-9922) Date: 15 Dec 87 08:06 To: risks@csl.sri.com Subject: Interesting note on expert systems liability from AI-Digest

From: DECWRL::"AIList-REQUEST@SRI.COM" "AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws 14-Dec-87 2224 PST" AIList Digest Tuesday, 15 Dec 1987 Volume 5 : Issue 283 ... Date: Thu 10 Dec 87 10:27:39-PST From: George S. Cole <GCOLE@Sushi.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Expert System Liability

I have researched this area and a paper is forthcoming -- as soon as the USC Computer/Law Journal editorial staff are ready -- on "Tort Liability for Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems". The trite answer is yes, there can be a suit and EVERYBODY INVOLVED will be named -- because the plaintiff's lawyer will realize that the law does not clearly know who is liable (including the plaintiff). A short answer is to cite the Restatement of Torts, 2nd, Section 552: "Information Negligently Supplied for the Guidance of Others: one who, in the course of his business, profession, or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information".

This section was cited without success in Black, Jackson and Simmons Insurance Brokerage, Inc. v. IBM, 440 N.E. 2d 282, 109 Ill. App. 132 (1982). The phrase "in the course of his business" was strictly construed to prevent liability under this cause of action (there were others, including warranty) as the court noted that the defendant had sold both hardware and software to allow the firm to process information. But in Independant School District No. 454, Fairmont, Minnesota v. Statistical Tabulating Corporation, 359 F. Supp. 1095 (N.D. Ill, 1973) the court permitted a negligence action to be brought against the third-party statistical bureau whose miscalculations had led to the under-insurance of a school which had then burned down. The court stated: "[O]ne may be liable to another for providing inaccurate information which was relied upon and caused economic loss, although there was no direct contractual relationship between the parties...The duty to do work reasonably and in a workmanlike manner has always been imposed by law..." Factors the court suggested to consider included (1) the existence, if any, of a guarantee of correctness; (2) the defendant's knowledge that the plaintiff would rely upon the information; (3) the restriction of potential liability to a small group; (4) the absence of proof of any correction once found being delivered to the plaintiff; (5) the undesirability of requiring an innocent party to carry the burden of another's professional mistakes; and (6) the promotion of cautionary techniques among the potential defendants for the protection of all potential plaintiffs. Did the ES indeed make a mistake? Suppose Joe has said he plans to invest for 15 years -- too short for real estate, too long for bonds, and in that light the "Black Monday" might be seen as a temporary aberration. (I.e. Joe caused the harm by selling out at the bottom rather than holding on for the 15 years as planned.) Can the experts hide behind the company? Those who are professionals (which is a legal phrase for "holders of a semi-monopoly") probably cannot be fully shielded; the rest may have to seek indemnity from their corporation. It will depend in part on their employment contract, or lack thereof. Can the knowledge engineers be found liable if their mistake led to this? What sort of mistake? A standard programming flaw is not the same as a design flaw. What if the mistake lies at the boundary -- who is responsible for realizing that the computer has to have rules for assessing "market psychology" that will quantitatively assess the subtle dynamics of what the current "feel" for the market is? Did the domain experts learn that the computer was going to do more than crunch numbers?

This is both a nascent and a complex legal area. My hope is that a number of the AI and ES companies realize the potential exposure and that the evolution of the law can be influenced by their behavior -- and begin to plan defensively. It is a bit more expensive initially, affecting immediate profits; but it can provide tremendous savings both for the firm and for the industry over the longer run. George S. Cole, Esq. 793 Nash Av. Menlo Park, CA 94025 GCole@Sushi.stanford.edu (until it goes away)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 16:28:09 PST From: George Bray <lcc.ghb@SEAS.UCLA.EDU> To: RISKS FORUM (Peter G. Neumann -- Coordinator) <RISKS@KL.SRI.COM> Subject: Re: Can you sue an expert system (RISKS DIGEST 5.71)

The discussion of suing expert systems is similar to the issues raised by [the case of the Therac 25]. I am talking about the several deaths and serious injuries that have resulted from software failures in certain X-Ray machines made by Atomic Energy Canada. (See the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum for a short summary article; an earlier issue (within the last year) of IEEE Spectrum had a longer article on the same topic.)

Basically, a modification to the data entry software used by operators resulted in the machine delivering extremely large doses of radiation while indicating that only small amounts were delivered. As I remember it, the machine can generate electron beams directly, or use the electron beams to generate X-rays. The machine is supposed to lower a target into the path of the beam to generate the X-rays.

Apparently, when the operator did some kind of data editing operation (I think it was use an up-arrow key), the software would get confused and raise the target while setting the beam intensity to the huge values needed to generate X-rays. This editing code was added in response to user's complaints about the primitive data entry in earlier versions of the software. If I remember correctly, the failure was caused by some rare conjuction of situations that could occur if the operator used the "up-arrow" key to edit data at just the right time. I think the bug was some variable that was also used in an interrupt routine.

Various family members of those injured or killed have sued everyone responsible, including the software engineer who added the "user-friendly" editing code. This raises many issues. On the one hand, there was no doubt that the software bug killed and injured people, so it seems reasonable that the people who made the poor software are liable. On the other hand, I believe that the bug was due to an unforeseen interaction that would be very hard to eliminate. These kinds of bugs probably exist in much of the software in thw world.

What do RISKS readers think of the issues raised by this case? Are programmers liable for their software's actions?

George Bray, Locus Computing Corporation

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1987 09:43 EST From: Dean Sutherland <Sutherland@TL-20B.ARPA> To: RISKS @ KL.SRI.COM Subject: Litigation over an expert system

In Risks digest 5.71, chapman@russell.stanford.edu (Gary Chapman) mentions a "goofy" California law that provides for a defendant who is only 1% responsible to pay 1% of the judgement. Although this law may be goofy, it is a major improvement over previous versions. Before this law was passed, it was possible to have the following situation:

Defendant A: 99% guilty, has assets of $10,000 Defendant B: 1% guilty, has assets of $1,000,000,000 Judgement of $10 million against defendants. A pays $10,000 (or maybe nothing by declaring bankruptcy). B pays $9,990,000... EVEN THOUGH B WAS FOUND TO BE ONLY 1% GUILTY.

The new version of the law is a BIG improvement.

Dean F. Sutherland, Tartan Labs

------------------------------

To: risks@csl.sri.com Subject: Expert Systems Liability Date: Tue, 08 Dec 87 12:09:03 PST From: Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bnfb@june.cs.washington.edu>

Regarding the discussion of Expert System Liability in RISKS-5.69 through 5.71 --- one argument is "it's just like a book". I disagree. The fact is that a book is completely Passive, but an expert system may be Active. One must ask a book for advice, but the expert system may offer advice on its own, or even act in your behalf.

Consider a car with expert system controlled drive-by-wire steering. When it fails, the manufacturer is liable, and it may turn out that the expert system made an erroneous decision. In that case, who, in addition to the automobile company, is liable?

Bjorn N. Freeman-Benson,University of Washington

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 11:07:24 pst From: uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill@RUTGERS.EDU (William Swan) To: RISKS@csl.sri.com Subject: Sue Who? (Re: RISKS-5.71) Organization: Summation Inc, Kirkland WA

>From: "Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU)" >Subject: re: Can you sue an expert system >[...] "If an expert system gives bad advice, who can I sue?" I find it >extremely disturbing that this is considered an interesting question by >ANYONE, let alone by technically sophisticated people. It is a symptom of >the pervasiveness of our misplaced trust in buzzwords and, more generally, >in computers: If the computer said it, it MUST be right. [...]

I wonder.

You believe instruction manuals, don't you? And try to follow the procedures therein? I can show you a service manual for my pickup that is very wrong at one step.

A true story:

Last week I was dealing with a new copier, which had its "entire" manual on-line. I needed to do two-sided copies and was overwhelmed by the numerous buttons and cryptic icons on the thing. No problem, I pressed "help" and the display walked me through the setup. Very nice! It even walked me through clearing a paper jam or two - even telling me where within the machine the paper jammed and how to get there ("lift lever A", "raise lid B", etc).

Suddenly I got a message, "remove paper from duplexor". What's a duplexor? I pressed help, and got.. "remove paper from duplexor". I checked all the mechanics on top. No paper. I cleared the paper trays. Nothing out of place. I opened the doors to the insides, the display says "close front door". I close the door and look elsewhere. Nothing. I open the doors again, it says "close front door". I close the doors and cycle power on the machine. I try a copy, it says "remove paper from duplexor". I open the machine up (it says "close front door") and hunt through the innards. No paper.

Finally, I find a secretary (it's after hours but she's still there) who tells me what a duplexor is and where it is. I return to the machine, open the doors (it says "close front door"), find the duplexor and remove the sheet, close the doors (it says "ready") and continue copying!

What did I do wrong? Believe the computer? I don't think so (C'mon, I know better than *that* :-). I had instead been led to put my trust in an incomplete set of procedures. More knowledge (i.e. what a "duplexor" was) would have helped prevent me from making this error.

The problem I ran into, and one that I'm sure we'll see more and more often, is that this form of the information hid its incompleteness. If I had had a printed manual with no reference to "duplexor" I would have known it was incomplete. This mechanised manual hid that information from me and, worse, led me astray by behaving as if it were not incomplete.

If this had been a situation with serious consequences I believe I would have very good cause for litigation.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 87 17:55 PST From: Wm Brown III <Brown@GODZILLA.SCH.Symbolics.COM> Subject: re: Can you sue an expert system (RISKS-5.71) To: RISKS FORUM <RISKS@KL.SRI.COM>

From: "Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU)" <LEICHTER@VENUS.YCC.YALE.EDU> Subject: re: Can you sue an expert system

In RISKS-5.69, Barry Stevens becomes another in a long line of people to raise the question "If an expert system gives bad advice, who can I sue?" I find it extremely disturbing that this is considered an interesting question by ANYONE, let alone by technically sophisticated people. It is a symptom of the pervasiveness of our misplaced trust in buzzwords and, more generally, in computers: If the computer said it, it MUST be right.

I find it extremely disturbing that ANYONE on this list would make such a statement. Judging from the length of the diatribe which followed this preamble, I must conclude that Mr. Leichter really has strong feelings and quite a lot to say on the subject, and therefore must find it somewhat more interesting than he admits to. Personally, I think that the realities of turning software, especially expert systems, loose on the world are very close indeed to the center of this forum's domain.

When software of this type is sold to professionals who know its limitations, or who understand that its output is an 'opinion' rather than a statement of hard facts, I agree that it is not reasonable for those users to turn around and sue if they get burned by depending upon it. This, however, is a very small subset of the potential users for expert systems.

Lawsuits are society's way of enforcing product specifications and warranties. Taking away this mechanism is equivalent to voiding these contracts. One way to look at things is that this is an important check which will discourage the offering of immature or inferior products. It is a very effective way of making marketeers "Put their money where their mouth is."

There are definitely cases where expert systems are of value because they offer potential savings in time; consider an 'advisor' for hospital emergency rooms which gives every third-shift physician the knowledge equivalent of twenty top specialists and a medical library, but much quicker. Users of this system simply won't have the time to second guess the 'expert' or cross check every literature reference, but if this system gives incomplete advice it will sooner or later kill someone. Should the physician on duty be responsible for deciding whether to follow the system's advice, even if he doesn't understand the specialty involved? Should the hospital let some patients die for lack of quick decisions rather than buy this system? Should state legislatures indemnify some or all of the players from lawsuits, thus legitimizing the concept that anything the computer says is gospel? Clearly, the legal aspects will be a large factor in the equation which decides when or if such systems will be installed.

On a more mundane scale, consider the original example of a personal finance advisor. If it is offered as a novelty, with pages of disclaimers and explainations of why no sane person would rely on its advice, who will buy it except as a toy? On the other hand, if it comes with the usual marketing banners describing it as the answer to everyone's financial questions, the end user certainly has some right to expect that it will give good advice. Whether this right extends to the point of filing lawsuits is properly a matter to be decided by a jury, based upon the facts in each individual case; it would be just as wrong to give blanket protection to software vendors as it would be to legislate all responsibility onto their shoulders.

To say that this topic is complex or ill-defined is an understatement. To say that it is not interesting is a personal opinion which I will hotly contest. If expert systems are to progress from academic curiosities to everyday-life applications, they will have to be useable by non-computer types who need fast and reliable answers, not philosophical disertations or legal disclaimers.

NOTE: The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer or anyone else.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 87 17:55 PST From: Wm Brown III <Brown@GODZILLA.SCH.Symbolics.COM> Subject: Microprocessors vs relay logic (RISKS-5.65) To: RISKS FORUM <RISKS@KL.SRI.COM>

Two cents worth on the relative virtues of microprocessors vs. relay logic for railway control systems. (Continuing the discussion started in RISKS 5.65).

There is such a thing as choosing the right tool for a job. About fifteen years ago, I did some design work on a motion control system for amusement rides. The improvements since then in reliability and cost of mini and micro computers has changed things, and I don't know whether I would draw the same conclusions today, but at the time the best solution appeared to be relays with a mini backing them up and monitoring for control system failures. Here's why:

>>>Well designed relays have a conservative life expectancy of 100 million operations (that's 1E8). They don't particularly care how long each operation lasts; things only wear when they move. Given a typical rate of 100 operations per hour, this works out to 1 million (1E6) hours of ACTUAL USE before they start to die. Idle hours don't count.

Computers typically have a fairly constant MTBF, regardless of what they are doing for those hours. Turning them on and off may substantially reduce this time, so it is difficult to decide whether it is better to leave the system on all day and use up 24 hours of life per day or power it on and off every day. Either way, not many computers come close to the million-hour level.

>>>Somewhere in the system, your controller has to connect to a real world full of spikes, transients, dirt, water, and unionized maintainence techs with 250 watt soldering irons. Relays are pretty imune to nearby lightning hits, poylester shirts, etc. Anything which permanently damages them tends to make them fail completely.

Computers can be brought down by anything from dry days to alpha particles. Worse yet, they may drop a bit without noticing it and you will never be able to figure out exactly what happened. Yes, it is feasible to program in a lot of redundancy, but it is still possible for a glitch in the housekeeping routines to clobber the functional code or working storage.

>>>Flexibilty is great when you want to control a ride and balance your checkbook on the same machine, however there are some cases where the same flexibility is useless or even dangerous. If you want the system to perform the same way, day after day, it is tough to beat hardwired control logic. If something DOES go wrong, it is usually much easier to deduce how and why when the logic paths are soldered down.

>>>Failures in relay logic tend to be more localized. A stuck contact in track zone 5 may someday permit one car to tail-end the next, but it won't affect zone 8 at all. If the same CPU is controlling the entire system it can spread havoc everywhere instantly.

No, I don't sell relays or even use them any more. This just seemed germane to the original discussion.

------------------------------

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest ************************