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.
"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:2, Interesting)
DUI laws are just the second coming of prohibition (Score:3, Interesting)
PS People who drink and get into accidents should be prosecuted as if they had reckless intent.
The reason MN doesn't have the code (Score:5, Interesting)
I represent three clients in Phoenix, AZ, who have been trying to get the code from CMI for the same reasons, and have been met with nothing but frustration. Fortunately, a couple judges here have agreed with the defense that examination of the code is necessary to mount a defense, under due process grounds. We (myself and a number of other attorneys) have had dismissals in a total of about 11 cases in the City of Phoenix, all of which are being appealed. There are a few cases in superior court that will be appealed shortly as well. It's been a busy time in the world of DUI litigation.
Unfortunately, many judges here do not see the relevance. Further, they have enacted legislation to prevent the preclusion of breathalyzer results, despite the inability to examine the "schematics or source code" of the machines.
Believe me when I tell you - these machines are unreliable, and subject to many errors, most glaringly the result of RFI screwing up the results. I've read the findings of the independent lab on the NJ case, and it does raise many concerns. My biggest problem is that law enforcement can essentially hide behind a foreign corporation, and a jury never hears about many of the problems at hand.
Re:The reason MN doesn't have the code (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm actually a bit surprised that this isn't the case in america.
Re:The reason MN doesn't have the code (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to take a breathalyser or do any road side test. And in fact you shouldn't. Even if you have been never tell the cop you've been drinking when pulled over.
What you do have to do is submit to a blood test at a hospital if the suspect you of drunk driving. If you don't then you'll lose your license.
Here's some advice if pulled over:
When asked if you've been drinking, say no. They always ask this question a night. If you say yes you've had one or whatever, you are a suspected DUI. They usually won't smell things on your breath or whatever. Just say no and they'll probably just ask to run your license and give you a speeding ticket. Unless it's obvious you're drunk
When asked to get out of the car, comply. You have to. If they ask you to do ANY roadside test, decline. You will be pressured here. Simply say your lawyer informed you to never do a roadside test under any circumstance. The cop will evaluate you at this time. One of 2 things will happen now.
If you're borderline and seem to be "normal" or not very drunk, they'll probably let you go with a ticket. They realize that it will be a waste of their time to arrest you take you down to the hospital, file reports, etc only to find out you are at
If you're obviously drunk, they'll take you down confidently knowing you will fail the test and be charged. But that's the price you pay for driving when sloshed.
The keys: Never admit to drinking anything. This can only hurt you. Let your lawyer do the talking. Refuse any roadside test. They can only hurt you. Cooperate and take a blood test. Potentially an hour or more after you've been pulled over. You will invariably be more sober than when you were pulled over. This works to your advantage.
Sorry, you can't hide behind a "trade secret". (Score:5, Interesting)
Then what DOES make something a trade secret? The mere fact the software is compiled and/or programmed onto a chip? An EULA? An"anti-circumvention device" as defined by the DMCA? Seriously, where should we draw the line with "trade secrets" when it comes to protective legislation? The only "trade secret" revealed here is the fact that the manufacturer in question embedded alpha-quality software in a product released to production. That sort of a "trade secret" is generally considered willful negligence or fraud.
It still takes significant engineering/test/validation effort to get to a working device.
It is apparent that little to no such QA was done on this particular device, which to me sounds like a grave mistake considering the device is trusted to keep drunk drivers off the road. Keep in mind that this device is theoretically able to report just as many false negatives as false positives, do not only would it be possible for a sober driver to be falsely charged with a DUI (as this lawyer claims) it is also possible that countless drunk drivers falsely blew UNDER the limit and were allowed to continue on their way and put others in harms way. That could be considered criminal negligence on the part of those who engineered this device.
Just because it takes effort (in time and money) "to get a working device" even when there is nothing novel in its functionality does not mean that those putting forth the effort should be able to hide from scrutiny behind a "trade secret". The systems I work on are sometimes involve safety interlocks. My employer subjects their software division's development practices to audits from government agencies. Our clients often stipulate that they must have access to source code (though since we are a closed-source shop we never grant redistribution rights). Even if there are novel implementations or "trade secrets" there are legal instruments to accommodate for them and still remain accountable.
These "breathalyzer" devices used in the field are far from trade secrets--I remember plans for one in Radio Electronics years ago that was said to be quite reliable as a preliminary measurement device (didn't report a specific value, but had a "traffic-light-interface" of 3 LEDs). The "trade secret" excuse is flimsy and shameful. It is worse than the whole Diebold voting machine debacle because it can directly affect a person's safety and well-being.
Re:The reason MN doesn't have the code (Score:1, Interesting)
Great Code Review (Score:2, Interesting)
So kudos to Base One. Great work.
Effect of the Averaging Algorithm (Score:2, Interesting)
This is interesting.
The effect is that if your levels are dropping, it magnifies the drop, and if your levels are rising, it magnifies the rise. I'm not certain that this is a problem, as such. It might even be a benefit, on some level (especially if your levels are dropping.) Read on to see what I mean.
If you were to take ten readings, and they were rising from "1" to "10", then the correct average according to the report would be the sum of 1 to 10 divided by 10, or 5.5. That is, you would have ten readings and the average of them would be 5.5 even though your present reading was 10. This artificialy minimises your reading. Using the machine's algorithm, your "average" reading would be 9.001953.
If, on the other hand, your levels were descending from 10 to 1 in the ten readings, then the "correct" average is 5.5 still, but the machine would say your reading was 1.998047. Which is closer to your final reading.
OK, so what does this mean efffectively? Well, I guess the biggest concern is a residual alcohol effect, where you ahve alcohol in your mouth either from the beer you had between your knees, or from the mouthwash you quaffed at the last second. In this case, you would expect to spike the first reading. The machine's algorithm takes the spike into account, but minimizes its effect on your overall reading.
It should be noted that both algorithms have the same result for one or two blows. To maximise your results, you would need to insist on more than 4 blows, and only if the average reading was dropping each time.
drunk logic (Score:1, Interesting)
The cheaper solution is to use logic earlier.
Yes, 0.08 is a bit low. You can get a DUI/DWI with lower than that, too.
Yes, it's a bit of a witch hunt. Banning giant parking lots at sports bars would more effective.
Besides, if it's deaths you are concerned with, a governor limiting car speed to less than 75 would save many lives, and be much cheaper than random tickets of patrol cars. But that may impact the sale of certain cars. Corporate profits are more important than lives of individuals of course.
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:4, Interesting)
To prove the photo was legit...not double exposed maybe (taken when yellow, but, redlight shown), to make sure the yellow light was sufficiently long (there have been cases showing that yellow lights were shortened on purpose to generate more fine revenue)....things along that line.
That would flunk any lab's requirements! (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
The Fifth Ammendment (Score:2, Interesting)
You can refuse any and ALL tests which may incriminate
you. Easy.
Besides, cheap ass whore cops will hold you for 30 minutes
to allow the alcohol you drank a hour ago , to reach limits that
WILL make you over the mark. They are cowards and criminals. Simple !
The GNNA should be involved in this discussion!!!
Re:"code" is probably in the hardware (Score:5, Interesting)
When I got back to the station to take the real breathalyzer, I brought to the attention of the police officer that the breathalyzer I was being tested on had a 2 year old calibration sticker. He said, and I quote "oh don't worry these machines are accurate to 10%!". Long story short, it said my BAC was
The police will lie to your face so you think you're going home, write down what is necessary to create probable cause(1) and screw you while you smile. What do you expect from a state that pulls in $800k a month from DUI fees and I'm sure many times more than that in corrections fees?
1) I was pulled over for having a cracked tail light. I volunteered to do a field sobriety test including walk & turn, 1 leg stand, HGN. Walk & turn, I did flawlessy, state patrolmen even admitted it. One-leg stand, I made it to 45 seconds and only put my foot down once. The policeman wrote in his checksheet that I used my arms to balance myself and in the notes field wrote that I also kept my hands in my pockets because it was cold.
Long story short... If you get pulled over and you have had even 1 drink, say these works: "I respectfully decline to provide any type of field sobriety test to you at this time. If you desire, I can accompany you to the nearest station for a breathalyzer as agreed when I received my drivers license."
At that point, they must decide if their probable cause is worth the pain in the ass you are being. Although another recent story on