What is Digg?72 Comments
- TehJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i think the person who comented on the original artical has a good point. and i quote
"Posted by: Burning Plastic | 20 Oct 2005 03:32:54
Sure, today some drunk is trying to get off the hook by saying that the software cannot be verified because it is not open. But tomorrow the gang bangers that raped your daughter will get off scott free because some library used in the DNA analyzing software is closed source and there's not a damn thing you can do about it!"
something to really think abut - nedpwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Drahknon has a good point. Alcohol breath tests are completely inadequate to demonstrate intoxication (urine tests, too, but that's another story)
They can, however, be used to establish probable cause, which typically would then require the much more precise blood alcohol test. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, if the breathalyser is used to establish probable cause, but the accuracy of the breathalyser is not credibly established, then how can that really be considered "probable cause"?
I mean, what if the thing is busted and always reports people as drunk? Then it becomes not a breathalyser, but a magical probable-cause-generating-machine. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It won't help them. Breathalizer tests are never used as the sole offer of proof. At best, it would needlessly delay the trial, which tends to make judges very, very cranky.
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Interesting story... but I see it opening Pandora's box. Next would be "is the blood test correct." Then several other tests used in legal precedings, and down the line. I would fear that if something like this went through, it would be used as a defense for all the DD cases on the books, and instead of taking away the licenses of repeat offenders, you keep this people on the road. Now that's frightening..."
If the technology is solid then there is nothing to worry about. The reason breathalyzers are under scrutiny is because the technology is not solid and is unreliable but is still evidence enough to send you to jail. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Nobody should ever be prosecuted based on breath alcohol results."
What are you, dense? Happens in every state in the country. In most states, just refusing to take a breathalyser test is an automatic arrest and sometimes suspension of your drivers license.
With the breathalyser, you're guilty until it says you're innocent. May not be legal, but that's the way it is. - danfitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The next excuse is..... Well you can convict me because the OS (windows) that they used to fill out the report was not open source. Some things are intellectual property and they can be calibrated to a standard but do not need to be open.
- modifiy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess in a way im missing the point, but these people were first spotted by police behind the wheel and doing something that cought the eye of the cops to get pulled over and tested in the first place. Its just a technicality to get off. They should have been responsable in the first place and not been behind the wheel.
- urbn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I remember hearing about this a few months ago. There have all ready been a few people who have had charges dropped because they would not release the source code.
- nedpwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I actually managed a toxicology laboratory for several years.I actually managed a toxicology laboratory for several years and testified in dozens of cases. It makes absolutely no difference whether the code is open source or not. What's relevant is whether the defense has access to it. Software can be closed source and still be reviewed. As a matter of fact, the judge could issue a subpoena to require the owners of the code to reveal it to the court.
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At least to prove that the machine is calibrated correctly a cop should have to blow first especially since the BAC result always stands up in court. Who isn't to say the machine may be deliberatly off inorder to send you to jail just because the cop doesn't like you?
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's really important is that the integrity of these tests be determined fully. If that means opening the source code to peer review and public scrutiny, then that's what it means. It might *not* mean that, admittedly, but then again, who knows?
It sounds like, until now, they've just been relying on the manufacturers claims and therefore relying on their testimony that the devices work. But as the defense probably pointed out, the manufacturers of these devices are not without interest in this sort of thing, as clearly they want to sell more devices, and the best way to do that is not to make devices accurate, but to make devices that find people to be drunk. More drunks = more convictions = more money for the police and court system = more sales for these guys. So relying on their testimony, which is possibly biased, isn't a good way for justice to actually be served.
So that really just puts the burden back on the prosecution to prove the device works as stated. Opening the source to the device might do that or it might not.
Point being that this story is not really about open source so much as it is about exposing potential bias in the manufacturers of breathalysers. - nedpwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Having said all this, something's missing from this story. Nobody should ever be prosecuted based on breath alcohol results.
- nedpwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, Otto, I'm not dense. As a matter of fact, I'm what is referred to as an "expert", and have been so certified by the court. I have testified, both for the defense and for the prosecution, at dozens and dozens of DUI cases.
Being prosecuted for refusal to take a breath alcohol test is not the same as being prosecuted for "failing" one. You are mistaken that most states will find you guilty for DUI because of the results from such a test. Most states, in fact, will only find you guilty based upon the results of a blood alcohol test. Given the absence of such a test, a combination of factors will be evaluated before a prosecutor will even consider pursuing such a case, because he will probably lose. If there is additional evidence, such as liquor bottles or eyewitnesses to drinking, or examination by an expert of some type, then of course there is a greatly likelihood to prosecute.
Official blood alcohol levels exist because of the difficulty in establishing true intoxication. That's why states have established specific values at which a person is presumed intoxicated. These levels, typically .08 or .1 are legal necessities to escape the quagmire of scientific debate over what constituted intoxication.
The difficulty with breath analysis is that widely varying values can be returned based on a number of conditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with actual intoxication: hydration being the most important. No respected toxicologist would ever attempt to give a precise blood alchol level value based on the results from a breath alcohol analysis. At best, he good give a probable range (which would be very big, by the way). - TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What next ... open source the "sobriety test"? Hell, I can barely stand on my left foot touching the tip of my nose with my right index finger while reciting the alphabet backwards while sober.
Better questions:
1. When was the unit last calibrated - can I see a calibration report on this unit?
2. Is this unit running the latest version of the firmware? When was it last updated?
3. Are you certified to operate this unit. When were you last certified to run this unit.
4. I would like 3 samples of blood taken in a sanitary environment for testing my BAC. - rewritable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey, quit whinning, drunks deserve what they get. My cousin has 5 DUI's and he has been serving 2 years in jail, he'll be out in January. Lucky he didnt hurt anyone but himself by drinking and driving.
- padewak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
the .08 legal limit is absurd too! let's create a super-breathalyzer that accounts for physiology! now that will be some code to look at! - Nite|Swine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0These devices are impressively accurate and are tested on a regular basis. There's not only white papers on each manufacturer and model, but sufficient precedence in court, upholding each as a valid test for providing evidence. It's important to point out that suspects of DUI are given a choice: blood or breath (in some states also urine) testing. Since no "breath sample" is retained for later testing when using a breathalyzer, some might argue that choosing blood (or urine) is the best option for those intending to fight the charge. Whatever choice is made, the results are merely the final item of evidence concerning the matter; there's also the observations made by the officer, results of various field sobriety tests, preliminary alcohol screening test results, and statements made by the suspect. In many cases, the final test is only a formality, as intoxication is usually not only apparent but plainly obvious.
- DaviDK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This might actually become a legal reference, and the same might be done with other machines (like voting machnines).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0spirion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101968.html
DC is full of black people and politicians, obviously they should have a zero tolerance law! - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm just surprised that something like these even HAS source code???
I figured it worked similarly to a CO detector (all analog circuitry), but detected alcohol vapor. Guess you need a computer in there to do.... ???
Still, asking for the source code is stupid, unless there are some studies that question the validity of the thing, or no studies confirming the validity of it. - ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you start asking about the calibration,etc. of the machine, the officer will likely add on more charges to the ticket. Legally, they can add charges until the ticket is paid, and trust me they will find the smallest things!
- megavortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just to clarify to everone, a preliminary breath test (PBT) is usually administered by the officer in the field before an arrest is made. This is with the small hand-held unit that you commonly see being used on TV and that lots of people are selling these days. This test is not admissable in court, however and is only used as a tool to build probable cause for the arrest. Once the individual is at the jail, they are usually given a second breath test by another machine which has been determined to be more accurate and is therefore admissable in court. This is the test that actually gets you convicted, not the PBT. And of course, other evidence such as slurred speach, etc... At least that's how it works in Michigan. And I believe that the article is talking about the second machine, so it makes sense. Ok, I'm done.
- Frayed_Knot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"All Drunk Drivers should go to Hell, Why should they ask for the stupid source codes that got them in trouble?"
Yeah, better to ruin the lives of innocent drivers than to let one guilty person go free. - dance2die, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This story just made my day...
- mesoed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting story... but I see it opening Pandora's box. Next would be "is the blood test correct." Then several other tests used in legal precedings, and down the line. I would fear that if something like this went through, it would be used as a defense for all the DD cases on the books, and instead of taking away the licenses of repeat offenders, you keep this people on the road. Now that's frightening...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Polygraph works!!!!
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Being prosecuted for refusal to take a breath alcohol test is not the same as being prosecuted for "failing" one."
Correct. I found out first hand. In the state of Florida when you sign your license it is also a signature of agreeing to this law. It is not an admission of guilt but your license is suspended just the same and the stigma of having a suspended license goes along with it. - antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0QUOTE: I actually managed a toxicology laboratory for several years.I actually managed a toxicology laboratory for several years and testified in dozens of cases. It makes absolutely no difference whether the code is open source or not. What's relevant is whether the defense has access to it. Software can be closed source and still be reviewed. As a matter of fact, the judge could issue a subpoena to require the owners of the code to reveal it to the court. UNQUOTE:
Yup, just like our good pals at Microsoft had to. - nedpwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tokenuser and danfitch are absolutely right. Being able to demonstrate that a device is properly calibrated is much more important than seeing the source code.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Wonder how far we can take this"
About as far as asking. Get ready for a conviction. Do NOT drink and drive kids.
- digg - Firestarter99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0even if the machine is wrong and the drop the DUI they can still charge you with DWI (driving while intoxicated)anyway so you still lose.
- antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It is people like this....(see below) that I'm glad we have a judicial system. Its people like that, who become judges, etc. that shouldn't. I can only hope that they don't spread like rabbits.
If I'm pulled over after I brush my teeth and wash with mouthwash, because I swerved, I'd like to know that someone like the person who wrote the below statement doesn't have anything to do with my "conviction".
Better yet, I WISH and PREY that the below person gets pulled over after washing out with alcohol based mouthwash and gets Breathalyzer and pulls a positive on it, even though they didn't have anything to drink what-so-ever.
QUOTE:
Face it loser, you were driving drunk. Suck it up and pay your new, higher insurance rates. While I think they are making an interesting point, I think people are continually trying to find different ways to NOT take responsibility for their actions.
UNQUOTE: - dfu23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm going to be overly biased on this on because I was hit by a guy that had blew a 0.28 and in all sincerity I am lucky as hell to be alive today.
In court the breathalyzer was minimal in proving the man's guilt and after talking with some of the nurses that were subpoenaed to testify they said that it is rather hard to get a decent BAC level because they don't get to the "patient" until hours after the incident and, of course, it will be much lower than whatever it might have been. Overall, if it weren't for witnesses to the event willing to testify the man could have quite possibly walked due to a lack of evidence.
I think, in my case, the worst thing was that the drunk only served 8 days out of 16 years that he was sentenced to ... the rest was suspended.
In my opinion we should give the officials even better equipment with more reliable and reputable results to make the punishment suitable to the crime and hopefully deter this from happening as much as it does. - Chimichanga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0meangene: "Face it loser, you were driving drunk. Suck it up and pay your new, higher insurance rates. While I think they are making an interesting point, I think people are continually trying to find different ways to NOT take responsibility for their actions."
innocent until proven guilty ftw? - falloutsyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this was on AOTS forever and a half ago.
- TwoSlick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The company, which refuses to discuss the case, instead claims that the software code for the 25-year-old device is a trade secret. Never mind that the actually application is less than 24 kilobytes in size (yes, kB) and still runs on a z80 processors that were introduced in 1976."
Is this guy a moron? What does processor age or code size have anything to do with trade secrets? He's trying to imply that there are no trade secrets because the code isn't gigabytes in size. 24 kilobytes is more than enough space to hold highly specialized algorithms.
After I read this, the author's whole argument was completly shot. - vr6vdub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, carciniogen, you are correct. It's called implied consent and when you sign for your drivers license, you are agreeing to a contract that states you must take a breathalyzer if asked to do so by a police officer. Failure to do so will give you the same penalties...fine, time of DL suspension, and points on your record. Here in VA both DUI and refusal will give you 1 year suspension and -6 points on your driving record.
- zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Say if it gets you off go with it.
I dont drink and drive I ride a Motocycle it would be a very bad Idea.
But when jonlaw in ruffing your rutabegga fight.
- Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0***** THE POLICE CORRUPTION
- nocre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 I completely agree. Someone that not so much blatantly breaks the law (as most laws mean little to me), but rather does so in a manner that endangers those around him- or herself should be taken out and beaten with a very heavy stick.
That being said, these machines, regardless of how important in prosecuting the cases, are a part of the process. Ensuring the quality and accuracy of them isn't going to help the guilty. It's going to help protect the innocent and ensure those deserving of punishment don't get off scott free. It's only a benefit to the justice system to ensure their tools are properly programmed, calibrated, and used. It's one thing we're actually able to do to help maintain the 'purity' of the process. We've little power against corruption. - megavortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yay!!! Let's all go out drinking and driving and see if it'll help us to! lmao... j/k :p
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There's a very simple solution for the problem of drunk driving:
Require convicted a drunk driver to ride a motorcycle, without helmet, for a duration not to exceed five years, but no less than two years.
If they're still alive at the end of all of that they've probably learned why it's important not to drive intoxicated.
With regard to the tools of conviction: they need to be open source. Human freedom and liberty is too important to trust to companies that are just trying to make a buck selling possibly bad technology to law enforcement. Amicus curi is not enough scrutiny... not enough check and balances for technology in the legal system; defense lawyers and their experts need to be able to look for problems because, god knows, all you have to do is look in the back of the Journal of Law and Order to know that cops spend their confiscated drug money on all sorts of wild techno-gadgets that are suspect at best. Go ahead and check it out... some of the devices selling in the back of that "Journal" make the ad in the back of Popular Mechanics/Popular Science look credible - MikeDawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does the software matter that much? I understand it is half of the device, what about understanding the hardware aspects of the device?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Kirks defence is that a programmed
> machine cannot dictate a living humans
> guilt or innocence.
Ah, yes... the quaint innocence of the '70s
...fscking hippies - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> I am just trying to think of why these
> idiots even THINK they have some kind
> of right to know he source code of any
> and all computer based machines that
> are used in law enforcement.
Because they should.
It's really that simple.
Just as they say that a Conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.
A rights advocate (constitutional rights, legal right, human right, whatever) is someone who has been unjustly imprisoned or had their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness impeded by the a legal system gone awry.
It happen more than you might think... certainly more often than the propaganda would have you believe. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> "Also, if the breathalyser is used to
> establish probable cause, but the
> accuracy of the breathalyser is not
> credibly established, then how can that
> really be considered "probable cause"?"
Extend this concept to the search for meth labs.
I'm pretty sure that I can build a device that will allow your kitchen garbage to provide the probable cause to allow the police to kick your door in. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Because if it is, I can build it and I will if I am paid enough make it happen. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> the .08 legal limit is absurd too!
> let's create a super-breathalyzer
> that accounts for physiology! now
> that will be some code to look at!
Want to have some fun?
Stick a low-end breath-a-lyzer(tm) in your arm pit after a strenuous workout.
(gleaned from friend's antidotes of the great book of stupid cop tricks). - mattb5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBUBJ5QK9E.html
"Seminole judges have been following the lead of county Judge Donald Marblestone, who in January ruled that although the information may be a trade secret and controlled by a private contractor, defendants are entitled to it.
``Florida cannot contract away the statutory rights of its citizens,'' the judge wrote.
Judges in other counties have said the opposite: The state cannot turn over something it does not possess, and the manufacturer should not have to turn over trade secrets." -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is