Closed Source -> Charges Dismissed? 700
Snorpus writes "According to the Tampa Tribune, judges in the central Florida county of Seminole are dismissing DUI charges when the defendant asks for information on how the breath test works. Apparently the manufacture of the device is unwilling to release the code to the state, and all four judges in the county have been dismissing DUI cases when the state cannot provide the requested information. Could this apply to other situations where technical means (radar guns, video surveillance, wire-tapping, etc.) are used to gather evidence? " I'd not plan on this as a legal defense, but the question it raises - of public access to information - is an important one.
"Original Story" (Score:4, Informative)
This tribune story only reports on the Orlando Sentinel [orlandosentinel.com] story found here which has some more details. The text of it is as follows (emph. mine):
Not wnating to set a precedent. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:As a matter of fact, do not trust these things. (Score:3, Informative)
If you add [say, cuz I'm not a biologist] sodium to a sample and you add 1mg too much, you don't specifically invalidate the results but you have to account for it in the final outcome...
The problem with this case is that the box that does the testing cannot be scrutinized which means there is no accountability.
And really, suppose the box was flawless, the company making them shouldn't hide the specs then. Hiding them just illuminates the potential rights violations they're unleashing on society.
Tom
Re:Red light cameras (Score:4, Informative)
When tripped, a camera actually takes two pictures; somewhat wide-angle shots that show the position of the car, the state of the intersection, and the state of the traffic signal.
The first shot will show your car behind the stop line (not in the intersection) and a red signal. The second will show your car in the intersection with the light still red. The photos are timestamped.
This way, they can prove in court that the car in the photo actually ran the red light at the time specified (the subject of the article above notwithstanding).
- Tony
Re:easy solution (Score:5, Informative)
Because a defendant, who may or may not be guilty, has a right to rebut and discredit the evidence - if the state or the company to which it contracts its breathalizers won't reveal that, the defendant is robbed of that right.
How do we know the third party is really impartial, thorough or accurate? The defendant gets a shot at evaluating the evidence too.
Re:Red light cameras (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Public Right to how it works (Score:5, Informative)
IMHO, the right to "know how these devices work" is just as important as the right to "face your accuser".
Imagine this scenario:
Background for non-US residents: In most places I have been in the US, the legal maximum blood alcohol content is around 0.08%. Most people (those with normal metabolism, etc) can easily drink one glass of wine and remain far below this limit.
When you take this test, don't you really want to know how the machine works? A false positive could have a huge impact on the rest of your life.
Re:radar guns (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Original Story" (Score:3, Informative)
Unless the source code has been reviewed by an independent person who is qualified to make such a review, how do you know that it correctly implements the process? What if there's a bug that causes every person whose result should be 0.012 to come out 0.210 instead?
Over here in the UK, any machine used for providing evidence like this has to be analysed by the Home Office for correctness. They demand complete source code and schematics of all parts of the system, and if you want to make the slightest change to the way the system is put together you need to get new approval for it. Prevents problems like this from arising.
Re:Public Right to how it works (Score:3, Informative)
The only reason I know this is because I had to attend a traffic safety class a few months back. The law went into affect last year yet we never heard a peep about it from the newsmedia. I'm really disgusted about it myself, but also frightened. This is a major erosion of our rights yet it was somehow slipped under the radar and passed into law. Democracy my ass, and I actually do pay attention unlike a lot of people. Looks like to really know what crap your state (and probably federal too) congress is up to you need to read every single bill presented on your own, a task that's far too overwhelming for any individual who has a job/family/etc.
Re:radar guns (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Red light cameras (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Red light cameras (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pulic Right to how it works (Score:2, Informative)
A large percent of the time, the blood test will show you a BAC that's .03% or .04% lower.
Why? Because breathalyzers are guessing. For one thing, your BAC is due to your mass, which the breathalyzer has absolutely no way to tell. And how fast you digest alcohol, which, again, it can't tell.
This is in addition to the fact they can't even do what they pretend to do, figure out how much alcohol you consumed. (Which has almost no relation to your BAC.) How much alcohol you exhale is due to how your stomach and throat works, it's not a constant.
Breathalyzers are the stupidest concept, ever. No one should ever be convicted based on them. They're useful for proving 'I smell alcohol on his breath, so I demanded he take a blood test', but they shouldn't be used for anything else.
Re:Sounds like a huge open-source business opportu (Score:1, Informative)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer.htm [howstuffworks.com]
And listening devices? That's common knowledge, and there are also publicly available regulations on how they can be used, like how only certain portions of the conversation can be recorded (pre-PATRIOT Act).
Re:Pulic Right to how it works (Score:2, Informative)
That's the point - it shouldn't be restricted at all. Any tech used by the state to prosecute citizens must be open to all citizens for examination. No trade secrets.
Yes, that might require changes in how procurment contracts are made, and might lower profits for supplying companies. Tough shit. That doesn't come close to competing with the rights of due process.
Re:radar guns (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Public Right to how it works (Score:3, Informative)
This is pointless (Score:2, Informative)