Breathalyzer Source Code Revealed 501
Nonillion writes "New Jersey attorney Evan M. Levow was finally able to get an order from the Supreme Court of New Jersey forcing the manufacturer of the popular Draeger AlcoTest 7110 to reveal the source code. Levow turned the code over to experts, Base One Technologies, to analyze. Initially, Base One found that, contrary to Draeger's protestations that the code was proprietary, the code consisted mostly of general algorithms: 'That is, the code is not really unique or proprietary.' In other words, the 'trade secrets' claim which manufacturers were hiding behind was completely without merit." Following up an earlier discussion here, the state of Minnesota has (without explanation) missed a deadline to turn over the code for a different breathalyzer.
Trade secrets claim is valid (Score:3, Insightful)
Trade Secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were expecting their code to be opened to the public, they would have taken the effort to fix up "spaghetticode.inc" which contains the single comment "//This works though i'm not sure why... clean up l8r!!!!".
Re:Trade secrets claim is valid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Flip it to another tool used for criminal convictions: if DNA were a public, proprietary process through only two or three companies nationwide and they refused to show anyone how it worked, would you trust them? Absolutely not.
Re:DUI laws are just the second coming of prohibit (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse, it won't even be near to possible for them to indentify all of the sufficiently impaired so as to protect the rest of us from their idiocy.
What drunk driving laws do is create an incentive for everyone to voluntarily police themselves, and to act more responsibly. If you know you run a risk of a long incarceration just for drunk driving, you may not take my life into your hands by getting behind the wheel and driving the same roads as I do. If you (or most of these drunk idiots) know that the only penalty for getting caught is being taken home, then you'll be much more encouraged to just take your chances with my life, rather than deal with the inconvenience and cost of a taxi ride.
Drunk driving laws disencentivize behaviors on an individual basis that normally have unfortunate incentives on an individual basis, but have an extremely high average cost for the rest of society. This is also why no-sleepy-driving and no-cellphone-driving laws are a similarly good idea.
Re:DUI laws are just the second coming of prohibit (Score:3, Insightful)
In California, for example, police statistics have shown that crash rates did not go down when stronger DUI laws were enacted. Inherently, driving a vehicle is the dangerous activity.. drink driving just gives people an acceptable scapegoat.
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The reason MN doesn't have the code (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, when you say breathalyser, are you talking about the roadside one or the station one? There's quite a difference.
Re:The reason MN doesn't have the code (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DUI laws are just the second coming of prohibit (Score:3, Insightful)
And, I agree with you it is a criminal act that should be punished after a day in court.
HOWEVER,
We are not talking about the guys who are falling down smashed can't get the key in the door drunk.
We are talking about folks at
I see lots and lots of behavior and drivers on the road doing stuff WAY MORE DANGEROUS than someone getting home after happy hour toting a
Mod Parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
So moderators - stop attacking the messenger ok?
There is a TV program which I do not watch called "Canada's worst drivers".
This program apparently is oriented to rehabilitating some of the worst drivers in the country - people which clearly should not be allowed on the road.
Many years ago I was in an accident caused by one of these people. I watched with disbelief while this person drove literally more than a car length and finally stopped when she hit my car. At no time during this did she ever look forward. She had her head turned to the left looking for oncoming traffic. Meanwhile I was to her right. This would have been 1001, 1002, 1003. I was thinking - Lady... you need to look where you are driving!
It was in the news that a kid was killed while sitting on a bus bench. The lady in question was trying to fetch the plant that fell off the seat while she was turning a corner.
Now - what we do see in the media are deliberatly distorted statistics. If the victim in the accident has had something to drink they stat "Alcohol was involved". The victim could be sound asleep in the passenger seat and there are cases of him being charged. 1) He wasn't operating the vehical. 2) he wasn't even awake. 3) He never operated the vehical. 4) it was his buddy who was driving him home and the car quit and his buddy went to get help.
While there are accidents caused by people who should not be driving because they are intoxicated, the truth is this is totally blown out of porportion. At 0.08% many people are not intoxicated at all. Others are intoxicated at 0.02%. And the post I am responding to correctly points out that some people are so compromised that they should never get a driver's license in the first place.
Then... we have a faulty machine testing a flawed premise. The flawed premise is that alcohol at a certain level makes everyone a criminal.
What we really need to do is get bad drivers off the road. IMHO tail gating is a far worse offence than driving with a little too much slosh. Of course the cops in this city like tail gaters.
Re:The reason MN doesn't have the code (Score:3, Insightful)
The MADD crew lost the moral high-ground long ago.
Roadside results are not important, anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
But in the end, I don't think any of this matters. Drunk drivers are not prosecuted based on roadside breathalyzer tests. They are prosecuted based on tests done back at the police station using either a blood test or a much better lab-quality breathalyzer. These instruments are regularly tested in a way that makes it easy to convince a jury of the validity of the results. I've seen some of the corresponding tests on a roadside breathalyzer, and they convinced me not to trust the device.
So, it's good advice to decline the roadside tests.
Re:The reason MN doesn't have the code (Score:4, Insightful)
you have NEVER EVER had a beer at work (maybe some milestone or something) and then drove home, perhaps even a few hours later?
that never happens to you?
or you have a glass of wine out on a date?
the laws are too harsh and people DO need to know all the info that the other side knows. not only is it desirable to know all your rights, its -necessary- for the system to really work at all.
Re:DUI laws are just the second coming of prohibit (Score:3, Insightful)
Driving drunk just makes it slightly more dangerous.
People would have you believe that there was some massive drop off in the number of crashes on the road when DUI laws were enacted. There wasn't.
How to really make the roads safer. (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I hate to agree with the gp, there is a valid point there, even if calling prosecution of drunk driving modern prohibition is absurd. The valid point is that there are plenty of things that make drivers unsafe and the tests to determine competency are arbitrary. Blood alcohol content doesn't measure competency, it just measures a risk factor, of which there are many including age, rest and mood which are ignored. On any given day, despite the fact that I don't ever drive drunk, there is some reason to question my competency. It might be my eyesight or my mood, or just that I'm giving half of my conscious attention to a programming problem, but the issue is that my focus is rarely completely solely on the task of driving my car. Certainly the level varies between those times when I'm in heavy traffic and the times when I'm alone on the road, but I think it is fair to question whether our society's emphasis on one risk factor is a realistic reflection of the true dangers of the road.
I'm sorry to say that I don't really have a better solution than the standard of hoping that the watchful eyes of law enforcement will pick up on those who endanger the lives of others in the road, at least not a socially acceptable one. If I'm getting to make free suggestions though, I recommend that persons who have exhibited stability, sanity and a tendency to be the safest drivers be issued a permit to shoot up to one bad driver a year. Should such an absurdity come to pass, I just hope that I'm one of the gun toting vigalities rather than one of the careless and dead. Come to think of it, I'd probably get a job where I could use public transportation or bicycle to work if I had to take the risk, so it would be good for the environment too. See, guns do make things better!
Posting from Texas, the only state where "he needed killin" might convince a jury.
How about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like calling a taxi or getting a designated driver?
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
Or just think ahead and don't drink if you're planning on navigating a massive structure weighing thousands of pounds down a highway with fellow human beings. Have a designated driver. Walk home. Take a cab. Driving isn't your only option.
Rather than making this an exercise in what you can get away with within the law, make it an exercise in personal responsibility in regards to your fellow man.
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an even more important question: Does the friggin' device work? I agree that reading through the observations, the code doesn't instill confidence. But the real important question is whether or not it works. There must be some requirement as to how many false positives/negatives are allowed because no matter how good your code, nothing is infallible. So what is the requirement in terms of acceptable false positives and/or false negatives, and does the device meet that requirement?
Is there is a real and legitimate belief that this device doesn't work? Or is this just some escapade launched by an attorney to free a guilty drunk driver?
BS statistic warning! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well there's a surprise.
Did you know that the percentage of accidents near football stadiums involving football fans is shortly before and after football games is five times the percentage at other times? Quick, ban football! Being a football fan causes accidents!
So between 2 and 3 AM, twice as many accidents involve alcohol as during the rest of the day. Do you think MAYBE, just MAYBE, that might be because twice as many of the drivers on the road between 2 AM and 3 AM have been drinking?
That data is useless by itself. You have to not only know the percentage of drivers involved in accidents who have been drinking, but also know the percentage of all drivers on the road who have been drinking. If both numbers go up by the same amount, then drinking (on average) has no affect on accident rate. And if it goes up less, that means that the real culprits of accidents between 2 AM and 3 AM are probably the fact that it's dark and people are tired.
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, I don't drink - never mind drinking and driving. And personally, I think that truly incapacitated drivers (not just Alcohol) that put others at risk should be jailed for a very long time. After all, killing someone lasts a lifetime.
That being said, laws should be enforced properly, and evidence should be good. If driving at 0.04 is bad, then that's where the limit needs to be, and that's where the equipment needs to be. Arbitrary enforcement of laws (speed limit, I'm looking at you) leads to contempt for the law.
We, as individuals, are subject to, and expected to abide by the law. It's bad enough that they have so many laws it's literally impossible to know all the ones that apply to you. Now you want to make it even harder making it so that even if you know the law and abide by it, you can still get in trouble?
America is supposed to be the land of the free, and was founded upon principles and laws designed to protect the people from the government. The government needs strict standards rigorously enforced by the people (by voting, constitutional amendments, and armed revolution - as appropriate). What good are having laws if the government disregards them at will? Furthermore, given our history (interring the Japanese, among other things), it should be blatantly apparent that the law (and by extension the collective power of the citizenry to enforce and replace it) is the only thing that can protect the people from tyranny.
Re:Frosty Pist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Article seems biased (Score:2, Insightful)
In many business applications, good enough really is good enough. The rough edges can be fixed later, after the release date has been met. So long as the data is good enough for a business decision there is no problem.
Devices which are considered infallible in the legal system must be held to a higher standard. If they have a false positive, someone who is innocent of a crime will likely be convicted, particularly in something considered to be straightforward like a DUI trial.
DNA evidence is something for which the source (how the probability was reached, including methods) is open to professional review. Why should a lower standard be applied to other crimes? If a crime is worth prosecuting, it should be worth being certain that the accused actually did commit the crime, not just a best guess.
Re:How about this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
The crazy shit won't stick in court? Where the hell do you live? I have lived in Jersey, Georgia, Tennessee and a bunch of other places while in college and in the Air Force and law enforcement officers at all levels are the same; they are a bunch of sleazy lying bastards. They will charge you with all sorts of crazy shit because they know that a judge will side with them on at least half the charges no matter how crazy of a story they make up or how good of an attorney you get to represent you.
In the US justice system today the average Joe Blow on the street is fucked before the case even gets to the court. If a cop pulls you over, pray he got laid that morning so that he'll be in a better mood...then you MAY have a chance to get away with only a ticket for a minor infraction instead of having to prepare for a serious ass fucking by some guy named Bubba who wants to make you his "wife". If the feds are investigating you...well you're just plain fucked, those bastards know how to play the courts like a fine Stradivarius violin so you might as well buy a case of KY to take with you to prison. And that shit about a jury of your "peers"??? Ya, right...In your dreams!!! I'll never understand how a bunch of housewives, gardeners, mechanics and other blue collar workers could ever be considered "peers" in cases involving white collar "crime" or highly technical issues. Think about it...we have morons who can barely balance a checkbook sitting in judgment of corporate accountants. We have fools who can barely run their own lives sitting in judgment of CEOs. We have idiots who have no idea what the sine or cosine of an angle means, but you will find them sitting on juries deciding cases involving engineering failures. The eyes of these juries glaze over 10 seconds into expert testimony, and yet they are "peers" of the accused? If the prosecutor tells them 2 + 2 = 5, they'll just take his word for it and convict. Thats justice by a "jury of your peers." Peers my ass!
Justice in the US courts? That is a myth. Why should there be any justice when just about every penalty includes an opportunity for the government to seize money, property, or labor, i.e. community service, from the so-called "guilty" party? Hell some "crimes" permit seizure of property on just a suspicion, with no charges needing to be filed and with little or no recourse to get the seized property returned. After all who has tens of thousands of dollars to spend to go through the process to get seized property returned. No one I know.
Fucked...just plain fucked. That what you are once the "justice" system gets a hold of you.
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Article seems biased (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering this is shipping code in a device that doesn't exactly do automatic updates over a wireless network, I'm not sure when, exactly, you're anticipating that this testing" code will be replaced with the "real thing". You'll forgive me for thinking you're taking a fairly blase attitude towards the obviously complete lack of coding standards, formal oversight, or rigorous vetting in code that can quite literally destroy someone's entire life based on the output.
Playing around with temporary hacks is fun for a shareware app, not an officially-sanctioned law enforcement device that decides whether you were the victim of an accident or the perpetrator of a felony.
Re:Article seems biased (Score:3, Insightful)
You could release the device with a non-optimal but completely functional piece of code due to time pressures in the development schedule. Maybe it's slow, or memory-hungry, but it still does the job just fine.
You mark the code as "temporary".
At a later date, you decide to release a new revision of the device - replacing the "temporary" code with a more optimal algorithm might provide cost savings by reducing the CPU spec needed, or the amount of RAM. Or maybe it just makes the device faster or extends the life of the batteries.
Given that the "temporary" code produced exactly the same results as the revised code, why is it important to this case? Is a drink-driver going to be let off because the manufacturer intended to release a later revision of the device which had a better battery life by running more efficient algorithms?
I'm not saying the manufacturer is in the right or in the wrong here, but it seems to me that you can't assume that code isn't production-quality just because there's a comment in there that states it's temporary.