Forget Voting Machines, Open The Code For Breathalyzers
from the take-me-drunk-i'm-home dept
As electronic voting machines have become popular, there's been a big call for the companies that make them to release their code for public scrutiny. The most notorious vendor, Diebold, continues to resist, but the clamor for opening the code of other machines is growing, with breathalyzers the latest target. Laywers for 150 people charged with drunk driving in Florida are asking to see the source code of the breathalyzers that got their clients arrested. The software for the device in question was approved by the state in 1993, but has seen numerous changes since then, and an earlier ruling said defendants could look at manuals and schematics for the machines. The company that makes them, of course, says the 25-year-old-software is a trade secret and opposes the motion.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology
Excellent reading in the DUI Blog:
http://www.duiblog.com/2005/10/04#a251
If you read here you will see that the only reason the evidence from these machines is admissible in court is because there are laws that declare it admissible. Otherwise it would be very easy for a defense lawyer to prove to a jury that the test results are unreliable (assuming you are even allowed to have a jury). These machines are highly fallible, both in their mechanics, and in the calculations they perform to arrive at a blood alcohol value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology
It seems we are so powerless to do anything in our own defense anymore. It costs so much for a lawer, court fees, etc. That no person in the majority of Americans who make less than $40,000 per year, can afford a lawyer, missing work, etc. Only people who have money, have the ability to do anything, should they be innocent. Only people who have money, have the ability to do anything, should they be guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Techno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Techno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure
Not sure what's worse, the asshat drunks or the lawyers who bottom feed and defend them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure
and I did not speak out
because I was not a drunk.
If you do not protect the rights of those you despise, those rights will not be there for you when you need them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure
.
Thomas Paine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the judgemental asshats from previous comments.
Don't tell me to not drink and drive because I have EVERY right to do so to a point depending on how large of a person I am and how long I wait before driving.
This is where the problem is. What if I decide to have 1 beer, I wait an hour, and drive home with a BAC of .05? Unfortunately, because of a faulty source code, the breathalizer says I have a BAC of .09.
I am wrongfully accused of driving while excessively intoxicated and may even spend a night in jail because of a company that doesn't care since they make money off the punishment of others.
Yes, it's dangerous to drive while intoxicated. But it's also dangerous to drive while you're sleepy or to drive when you're over the age of 65. And those people are not punished for endangering the lives of others...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To the judgemental asshats from previous comme
In Canada there is the .08 "rule", but you can be charged with any alcohol level in your blood. That's left to the discretion of the officer.
I await the day when there is no more manual driving.. Only then can these problems be solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To the judgemental asshats from previous comme
Technically, the law varies by state, but the federal funding leash has them pretty much uniform. It is, in fact, a specific fixed limit. .07% blood alcohol, and you're Joe Average, who just stopped to loosen up on the way home. .08%, and you're a child-killing, drunken SOB. Kinda makes you hope that watever you're being tested by is accurate, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point, Set;
If for some reason you are given a Breathalyzer test and the device is not accurate, you could be falsely accused and get a DUI.
Here's a point; 'Trade secret' is a secret which gives a product a competitive edge over competition. When information is called into court to dispute how a determination was made, that means that it MUST be brought to court. The Sixth Amendment assures the right to face ones accuser -in this case, the Breathalyzer made this judgement. I believe this also applies to questioning how the judgement was made, and if their is question as to its legitimacy, then 'trade secret' or no, they've got to do it.
I believe that this is a legitimate claim, considering that the makers don't want to show the courts to see how they've programmed these devices. I doubt Corporate Espionage extends to a jury of randomly selected individuals. Remember Apple was found guilty of illegally using the courts to do their own investigation, trying to use 'trade secret' to hide from the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drink at home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drink at home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drink at home
Go preach elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]