What is Digg?264 Comments
- Shogi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+183It may be a bit foolhardy, but it is one hell of a smart gamble. No company wants to turn over their source code period, much less just to bust one small fry for a DWI charge. If they don't turn it over, he walks, if they do, they run the risk of having it leaked to competition or be found flawed, which could kill them, or cost them lots of money in having to develop newer better code to make up for it.
I'd put my money on the guy walking. - skjede, on 10/10/2007, -13/+179If the machines were genuinely miscalculating numbers somewhere in the code that's one thing, but drunk drivers don't need any more loop holes...
I love it when people beat the system but drunk driving has no redeeming qualities. - stradv16, on 10/10/2007, -20/+152Hope he wins.
- Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -11/+113Sorta. If he really was over the limit while driving, I hope he loses. However, I do hope that, if a flaw exists in breath analyzers, he finds that flaw.
- qwickone, on 10/10/2007, -9/+68Even if he was over the limit, I hope he wins. He's just suing to see the source code, not to get his case thrown out. I hope he gets to see the code because we should be able to know if the tests are accurate. And if he's guilty, hopefully the source code will prove it was an accurate test.
- JamesBrown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+57If he walks, doesn't that mean everyone walks? If people continue to use this "show me the source" defense, eventually the company will have little choice.
- trevbork, on 10/10/2007, -8/+57This is so awesome. I totally hope that this guy wins.
- 0x0D0A, on 10/10/2007, -1/+42Any test used by the government to enforce law should be a matter of public domain.
- flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -0/+38he's demanding his right to face his accuser
- JD52, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37This is a good idea. I got a speeding ticket sometime ago I requested ten separate documents the police had. They thought they would be cute and not supply them to me even though I had the legal right to examine every single piece. Because of that I got the ticket dismissed with minimum hassle.
- netdawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35what were the 10 pieces you asked for?
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34That's the whole point. The company will have little choice. It will either turn over the code or the state will stop using its products.
If the reading off of a machine is going to get you criminal charges, then you damn well have a right to know exactly how that machine works and have it proven that it works correctly. - flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30Yah, and he may lose the DWI case, and that's a separate issue.
But I like the idea of someone, other than the company that created it, being able to check the source code of the systems that are used to convict people.
Besides, in a sense, I think this may really be an example of his stated-in-the-constitution right to face his accuser. In a sense, that software *is* accusing him. - hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30Sounds like plan for Diebold , Seqoia and ES&S. If this guy can get the source code for a breathalyzer. Would it set a precedent for the black box voting systems?
- Shogi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31Drunk drivers kill people. Not all the time, but enough that if you try that argument anywhere else, MADD will be all over you.
- scoobycarolan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Wish I thought of that about $10,000 dollars ago......
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30its foolhardy to make his DWI defense a battle of expert wittinesses. the states witness on the Intoxilyzer are really really really good. not that I know anything about that.
- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24It's a motion for discovery. He has the legal right to know how a machine used against him works, just as you have the legal right to know how a police radar works, when it was last calibrated, etc.. There is nothing special about this. Now if he were DENIED his motion for discovery, that's be news as the judge would be standing in his way of access to potentially vital information to his defense.
- arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28It's a mystery to me why breathalyzer tests are admissible in court. They are no more accurate than polygraph tests. They fail to take into account for personal alcohol tolerance, and because of that, they ruin the lives of otherwise innocent people.. costing them thousands of dollars, increasing insurance premiums, and making it difficult to find work. Put two guys side by side, with the exact same BMI, same height, same weight, same age, etc. The only difference is that one of them is a heavy drinker, and the other has never had a sip of alcohol in his life. Give the heavy drinker a 6 pack and it won't even phase him. Give the non-drinker a 6 pack and he's going to get drunk. Both people will have the same amount of alcohol in their blood stream and on their breath, but because they have different tolerances to alcohol, they won't have the same effects. It pisses me off to see this happening to people.
- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22LOL.........you think THESE B.A. machines are "bad", you should have been around in the 70's and early 80's with the old
Smith & Wesson model 900 Breathalyzer machines. We use to call them "dial a drunk" machines because they were so
inaccurate. But, back then, lawyers were not as "sharp" as they are now. We could dial in a drunk, just by screwing around
with the needle. Check out a picture of them on the web, then you will see. They had two vials of a light yellow acid. You
break the top off of one, set it in the machine with a tube in the top. You purge the cylinder and then light shines between each
tube of liquid, a sensor picks up the light between the two. You have a drunk (ok, an "aledged" drunk) blow into the tube filling the
cylinder. You turn a knob and the breath sample is bubbled into the liquid with the tube in it. After a few minutes, you hit the button
and the light comes on. The alcohol turns the yellow liquid a lighter color, depending on the alcohol in the sample. This causes the
needle to unbalance. You run a knob up until the needle is centered and the scale was "calibrated" to show the alcohol amount.
Now, if you were not standing dead center over the needle, you could "fudge" the reading one way or the other. Hence the name
"dial a drunk". - ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+28I dunno, I actually don't think they should be forced to release the source code. If CMI Inc. wants to run their business in a way that doesn't involve sharing their source code, that's their prerogative. What they should require is independent tests on the device to make sure it produces reliable results. This guy's attorney claims they need to see the code to prove it's not just a "random number generator" (as an extreme example)--well, no, you don't, you just need to test it as a black box. Although I subscribe to the idea that information should be free, I don't think we should just force the company to reveal their source code just because some guy is trying to find a way out of trouble.
- McShaken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20While we're on it, how about being able to see the source code for all those "secure" electronic voting machines?
- Shogi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Essentially what he's doing is calling the state out on their assumption (or our) assumption that a Breathalyzer is always right. Now they have to either prove it or lose it.
- AdamFromMyspace, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18..or maybe he's just concerned about the accuracy of breath testing devices..
- Mysrt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17as was previously stated by other digg users winning this case doesn't get his DUI charge cleared, it simply lets him look at the source code for the breath analyzer. He can still win this case and still be convicted of the DUI if it is proved the code works, which it probably does.
- UlicBelouve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Two items so far that I am aware of:
--In about 20 states, the law says it's legal to drive slightly over the posted speed limit as long as you can prove conditions made it safe to do so.
--You have the legal right to know how a police radar works, and when it was last calibrated
I think I'm going to check the local law, and request documentation of the last calibration date for the radar gun that zapped me. - GuyHitByTruck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14"For all we know, it's a random number generator."
I lol'd! - cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19You don't have to be drunk to get a DWI. Welcome to the neo-prohibitionist MADD vision of America.
- jmnormand, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14based on the article he already won the right to see the source code. so the precedent there is already set. whether or not the he was driving illegally wont effect that.
- yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Yes, explain how you went about this. What documents do we have the right to examine, and how do you go about requesting them?
- Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13While I tend to vote on the side of companies running things their own way, that's because in those cases, the consumer has full control over whether they're involved with the company.
When it comes to government, though, things change. Government has power over your life, including the ability to prosecute. In that case, a government "by the people and for the people" should not be allowed to keep their methods secret. If they want to use third party software, it should be with the condition that that software becomes open. - carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14that's the most elegant way to put this i could think of. *gives flygirl another cookie*
- xsuite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11...unless he really wasnt drunk.
Its very unlikely but still plausible. Remember, justice is blind. The only thing that matters is how a case is presented in a court of law. If it wasn't like that then I'd be out of a job. :P - arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Something I know so little about? How about you go check YOUR facts before accusing me of mine being wrong. Breathalyzer tests DO get you a DUI. And to verify it, I just asked my best friend (who just got a DUI last year after blowing a .09 over the legal limit of .08) if he ever took a blood test. He did not. Breathalyzer tests are completely admissible in court. Go troll someone else's thread.
- msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Field sobriety tests aren't always used. They have portable breathalyzers now. They'll just pull you over and walk up to your car with a breathalyzer; you don't even have to get out of your seat.
The problem is that it's being abused. Swerve a little too often for an officer's liking? Breathalyzer. Out a little late on a bad side of town? Breathalyzer. Car full of young people? Breathalyzer. Add to the fact that .08 isn't impairing for most people and the zero tolerance laws, and you can start to see why people are defensive about it. - NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12It may. IANAL, but it would seem to me that it might be a hard sell as precedent, since the voting machines aren't used as evidence against us for a crime. And if you couldn't tell, the quiet violation of our civil rights doesn't seem to be the priority of the courts as of late.
- Vardogr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It doesn't matter if the formula is well known, it matters if the software for the breathalyzer implements said formula correctly and has no errors. I'd say the source code is entirely relevant in that case.
- cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Just like on Star Trek, when the computer had the only evidence against Capt. Kirk, and he demanded to face it, and kicked some ass in the process, and then made out with the prosecutor at the end.
- akcoder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13As someone who has a DWI, I'm glad the cops are enforcing the laws. God only knows who I would have killed if I hadn't received the wakeup call I needed...
- nunzi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Yup...which you'd know if you'd read the article, where they mention and link to it.
- Protector, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Ding! Flygirl gets a cookie.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10"Besides, in a sense, I think this may really be an example of his stated-in-the-constitution right to face his accuser. In a sense, that software *is* accusing him."
I think that's a brilliant assessment of the situation. You, sir, should go to law school. - digger1942, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Yeah, like graphics cards.
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11No, you need the source code. Because let's say they connect it to a device to test it as a black box: How do you prove that it doesn't behave differently during that test than it does the rest of the time? Far-fetched? Not really, a lot of devices have been engineered over the years to behave differently during testing than during real-world usage.
- theolane, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13all due respect, but even on the off chance that that number is accurate, that is *still* 5,000 too many - someone wants to booze it up and put themselves in danger, then they should stay the f**k home and not risk other people's lives
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Its funny. You say that now, but if it said he ended up killing someone, you would probably say, "Hope he rots in jail."
- cjsedwards, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If you can find some condition in the code where it will report false, you can prove as much as you like that it works 1000 times, but that doesn't prove that it worked properly that one time
- DustinR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10What if the sky falls tomorrow?
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Don't you 'Think of the Children' me. To ensure the accuracy of any state-utilized device, the complete technical specs should be available for peer review. Voting machines, parking meters, breathalyzers, fingerprint analyzers, you name it. With closed source systems, there's the opportunity for abuse of the system. Open systems can at least be checked.
- Scyth3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You're telling me you wouldn't try it if you got a DWI? I wouldn't drive drunk (DD's are amazing), but I think I'd try anything to get off the hook if I did get busted for DWI.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 259 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is