eBay's Skype Plan: Make Money From Free Calls
Gizmondo, Now Trying Even Harder

Forget Voting Machines, Open The Code For Breathalyzers

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the take-me-drunk-i'm-home dept

Thu, Oct 20th 2005 10:07am — Carlo Longino
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.
Hide this

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

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Beck, 20 Oct 2005 @ 11:19am

    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 ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2005 @ 11:27am

      Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology

      Just don't drink and drive and you won't need a lawyer to get access to the source code ya fucking drunkies!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Colby, 20 Oct 2005 @ 3:40pm

        Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology

        Maybe the whole reason there is a discussion on this webpage is that non-drunk people(sober), are being falsely charged with drunk driving... Or, at the very least, people who are not comitting a crime are being prosecuted for one. It seems to me that the bigger problem is that there is no way for a person to prove his innocense should he be in the right and a cop made the error. To allow a device, which has obvious fallacies, should have never been considered in determing whether somone is charged $8,000+ for being a "drunk driver". Duh? This is along the same lines, in my mind, as the speed photos they have in our town. The pictures do not show nearly enough detail to identify a person conclusively. Innocent until proven guilty? Or innocent until someone else decides your not? Cops, judges, etc. are all actually REAL people. They are prone to all the same mistakes as anyone else. Why would we not have a system in place that accounted for this? The whole underlying system in our government - one which would ensure a government official had no more power than a anyone else, and could not be held above the law - was that of a "checks and balances." I am quite bitter on this subject as I have been harassed by cops for both good and bad reasons. e.g. "bad reason" - Driving home from work at 3:30am, to be pulled over because the cop wants to know what I'm up to at that hour. "good reason" - I ran a yellow light, that could have possibly endangered someone else. The cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket.

        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 ]

      • identicon
        unknown, 4 Oct 2006 @ 7:07pm

        Re: Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Techno

        amen to that!!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2006 @ 6:21pm

        Re: Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Techno

        dont be such a pussy about drinking and driving some people can do both and still have better driving habits and attention to whats around them you fucking moron

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    VonSkippy, 20 Oct 2005 @ 12:12pm

    Sure

    Sure, let's protect the rights of those stupid drunk bastards that can't obey the simplist of rules (i.e. don't drink and drive).
    Not sure what's worse, the asshat drunks or the lawyers who bottom feed and defend them.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Dave, 20 Oct 2005 @ 12:23pm

      Re: Sure

      First they came for the drunks
      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 ]

      • identicon
        arcfixer, 20 Oct 2005 @ 12:48pm

        Re: Sure

        "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from his government".
        .
        Thomas Paine

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    nostranonymous, 20 Oct 2005 @ 12:52pm

    To the judgemental asshats from previous comments.

    Let's not forget that it's perfectly LEGAL to drive with a BAC of less than .08

    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 ]

    • identicon
      Rikko, 20 Oct 2005 @ 3:14pm

      Re: To the judgemental asshats from previous comme

      You sure about that?
      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 ]

      • identicon
        Dave, 20 Oct 2005 @ 5:15pm

        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."
        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 ]

  • identicon
    DGK12, 20 Oct 2005 @ 3:17pm

    Point, Set;

    You don't have to drink an alcoholic beverage to consume alcohol. Remember than some cough medications have alcohol in them.

    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 ]

  • identicon
    Killed A Hobo, 20 Oct 2005 @ 6:28pm

    Drink at home

    Just drink at home, if you feel the urge to drive, pop in Gran Turismo and wreak some havoc digitally... The only person who gets hurt that way is the guy who gets in your way when you throw the controller at the screen!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bill, 21 Oct 2005 @ 10:02am

      Re: Drink at home

      That's right, no wine with dinner, and bars are no longer alloed to have parking lots.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2005 @ 12:19pm

        Re: Drink at home

        Says who? Not the law, that's for sure. If the law did say that, the legal BAC limit would be 0.0

        Go preach elsewhere.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]


eBay's Skype Plan: Make Money From Free Calls
Gizmondo, Now Trying Even Harder
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.