Comments on: Police Blotter: Defendant wins breathalyzer source code
Man charged with drunk driving says his attorney needs access to the source code to fight the charges; state supreme court agrees.
Man charged with drunk driving says his attorney needs access to the source code to fight the charges; state supreme court agrees.
January 4, 2010 4:28 PM PST
January 4, 2010 4:27 PM PST
January 4, 2010 4:02 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
Nobody's disputing that drunk driving is a serious offense, but those accused of it have just as much right to defend themselves in court as everyone else.
Holding both the accuser and the accused responsible for their actions is what helps create a society based on the rule of law. Otherwise, we'd be a police state. I for one prefer the former.
i think they should raise the blood alcohol level to maybe .10 or .11 and then not plea bargain. better yet do it by weight to alcohol.
the system isn't set up to save lives. it's set up to the state's advantage. like confiscating cars and officers do get a commission on traffic citations you know.
in my drinking days i witnessed people's lives destroyed by the ideology that a 250lb plus man is impaired at .08. i can't in good concience ruin people over hysteria.
personally i think bars should be outlawed. buy your embalming fluid and puke on your own floor.
I don't know of any state court that makes law, either.
The fact that the 'breath-o-matic' is based on a z80 microprocessor is a laff at best. They might as well use my commodore 64 playing jumpman...
_s
The question I ask myself is, "Why would they need custom software?". 99 out of 100 times off the shelf solutions work best.
I would like to see the software myself I would bet that it is under commented and has lots of stuff like "if (0==1) {....}
The issue is the source code of the machine that tests if the guy was drunk or not. By the law, he was or wasn't. The machine needs to be accurate.
the only differences from the "antiuqe" s&w 900 that have been implemented, at increasingly high tax-payer expense are technolgies to remove operator interference.
the computations are high school chemistry.
at some point technology is about communication, not complication.
I agree, it's a good thing the source code is out. As an Engineer everthing I do right down to my calculations can be called into question in a court. Software and the professionals who right it are no different. Even if they think they are.
you missed a few commas, as well.....
Sounds like too many "edumacated professionals" I have to deal with on a daily basis in the construction industry; (that I have to correct in the field.)
GO BOOK SMARTS!!!!
(No field experience!!!)
Radar Gun software the next time someone gets a ticket?
Traffic Lights software the next time someone claims it short-cycled on them and that's why they ran it?
C'mon this is a story about a drunk driver that actually got caught and is fighting for his sorry life with a defense attorney trying to make a name for himself.
Determining if someone is legally drunk at the scene is not that hard to determine these days.
US law should MANDATE a blood test on the spot to go along with this breathalyzer test to put an end to this issue.
Code used for enforcing laws *must* be made available. Otherwise you lost the right of facing your accuser.
stop forcing blood,hair and urine from the body which, is unconstitutional no matter what a politically correct supreme court says. then, just outlaw any aroma of alcohol on the breath or in the automobile. seal all containers and make it a violation to transport a broken seal.
outlaw bars and by the drink alcohol.
essentially what they have done is set up a complex money making system for the state and insurance companies and are doing nothing to save lives or help people. which is basically what the war on drugs is all about.
Roadside blood tests? Yeah, I could see that going south real fast. People could argue with the chain of custody on the blood sample as it goes to the lab, or that it was contaminated, or that they got an infection from having their blood drawn on the side of a road.
Nobody is bleeding into the intoxylizer.
Nobody is bleeding into the intoxylizer.
So, that is, simply, NOT the real-issue. Anyone that keeps harping on that point, in this case, is clearly trying to confuse the REAL issue with a blatant RED-HERRING, ...or has some serious, personal, comprehension-problems.
The simple fact is that "citizens" DO have a "right" to question automated-techniques used by "law-enforcement" to obtain "criminal-convictions". THAT, is what was decided by this court... NOT innocence, nor guilt, nor moral-responsibility, nor societys right to protect itself from dangerous-criminals.
And, I totally agree with this ruling. The, very real, nightmare of "police-officers" being allowed to effectively point a -magic box- at you and obtain a virtually unquestioned "conviction"... is an absolute abomination to America, Freedom, Justice, or any legitimate form of "due process".
It DOES NOT mean that the "guilty" will walk-free... It merely insures that the innocent are treated fairly.
I would take a big sip of wine, blow into it, and it would register a .60, which is death. I feel that we must release the source code so we know the methods in which we are being arrested. If we allow ourselves to be filmed, then there should be some transparency on the law enforcement end as well.
Let's hope there's more and more of this occuring.
Making the source code available will either help to prove it's very accurate or prove that it is not.
Seems reasonable to me.
my opposition to the death penalty doesn't change just because someone i know is murdered.
either something wrong or right... just because something happens to ME doesn't change that.
oh, and you're an idiot. whoops, i said that already. but really... idiot.
yes, and i don't condone burning kittens. or axe murder. or axe murdering kittens.
let's just all ASSUME that most people aren't condoning DUI. i'm sure we can agree that we can debate this issue without thinking DUI is a peachy keen idea.
- Even with the source code
- by bluemist9999 August 15, 2007 8:09 AM PDT
- How do you determine it is accurate? And to what level does it need to be accurate for the conviction to be upheld?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (79 Comments)Proving a program does what it is supposed to do is the hardest branch of computer science.
It's likely a small piece of embedded software, written in Z-80 assembly language, with some lookup tables to match sensor inputs to BAC outputs.
If so, then the defense could challenge the calibration tables.
So, where does this end?