[antihero]

The whole point of the legal system is that whilst it's defined as clearly as possible, there is always going to be some flexibility and interpretation, and a human element, so if someone finds a technical loophole but is clearly defrauding everyone they can still be put in jail. Of course, it isn't perfect, but the idea of law being absolute (as in code is law) is absurd as we lack the capability to consider every eventuality when we release code.

[ZeroGravitas]

Yeah, but it's the absolutism that's the issue, not the buggy code.

When designing automated replacments for any business process you have to deal with the same 'exceptions'. You could just accept "computer says no" as the desired outcome in exchange for the efficiency, and let hackers take your money because "hey, they beat the system! It's theirs now" but that's a choice, not a limitation of the tech itself. Unless the tech's only benefit is that "computer says no" or "hacker took your money" is final, which doesn't actually sound like a benefit.

[zzonk]

The problem is that if you allow overrides in the computer absolutism, corrupt governments will use these overrides to their benefit. And you’re back to the square one.

[ZeroGravitas]

If the government is corrupt, then you've got problems regardless.

The general solution to this issue has been more and better democracy, which despite a lot of effort being spent undermining it, still seems to be the best solution available today.