Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Culture of Ownership - Drunk drivers fight back

Mar 3, 2008 10:08PM PST

Drunk drivers are now asking for the source code for breathalyers and the state of MN is suing to get it.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_8443099

One judge in Carver County, Minnesota dismissed more than 30 DWI cases last month because prosecutors there didn't turn over the code after defense attorneys had asked to see it.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
The Problem Here....
Mar 4, 2008 3:38AM PST

Is that the "code" is "Proprietary" but it can ruin someone?s life. Programmers are not the experts they are programming for, merely experts in programming. This split is a well known programming issue.

Related issues come up in the licensing. A parking garage had a failure when the public agency learned that the software was proprietary and licensed and the owners pulled the plug on the license.

The overall problem is that software is a tool and while we get to own all other tools we work with, we only get to borrow the software and that borrowing tends to be revokable. Sort of like borrowing your neighbors tools to do a project, except you paid him to borrow them to boot.

- Collapse -
problem is
Mar 7, 2008 8:19AM PST

How can a person belive in the impartiality of the manufacurer if they CAN'T see the code..

For ANYTHING that requires security (testing like this i belive is such a application) the source code should be a required thing if asked for..

I don't belive that it should be used though to get off a drunk driving when one is drunk, but for those that are not, how can we be sure they are not a false positive because of the code being wrong?

How many people's rights have to be violated (because of bad programing causes them to be convicted) when they can't prove there was NOT a error.. Sad

- Collapse -
ridiculous
Mar 9, 2008 1:31AM PST

You don't need the source code on a breathalyzer to determine its validity anymore than you need the exact metal composition of a wrench to know whether it works to turn a nut. You can test them by actually using them in controlled experiments etc.... knowing the source code is irrelevant.

- Collapse -
you are right
Mar 9, 2008 6:10PM PDT

I think it is sad that people just want to look for any way out they can find because they don't want to pay the price for the crime. Wouldn't you want to see the test reports that have been done comparing different models/brands?

- Collapse -
Right on.
Mar 9, 2008 1:33AM PST

With a peek at the source you are left with black box testing. White box testing is preferred.

Bob

- Collapse -
There's a constitutional argument to be made for this...
Mar 9, 2008 3:11AM PDT

The sixth amendment grants a defendant the right to confront their accuser. It could be argued that an examination of the source code of breathalyzers is covered in this right.

- Collapse -
The sixth amendment
Mar 9, 2008 3:52PM PDT

The sixth amendment grants a defendant the right to confront their accuser. You don't get the right to peak inside the mind of your accuser. You can't take him into a psychiatrist.

Doing lab tests on the actual breathalyser would be more conclusive then seeing the source code.

Viewing code and seeing how that actually runs on a certain piece of equipment is two entirely different things.

- Collapse -
Lab Tests
Mar 10, 2008 4:46AM PDT

Lab Tests are only conclusive of what they test. They are in effect treating the device as a black box. "Put X in Y comes out".

Seeing the source code & hardware lets you look at the bigger picture. Like if a breath mint screwes up the sensor because it measures all "vapors" meeting a certain cirteria. Maybe methane while driving near a swap can knock it off.

In a lab, untless you can think of it, you can't test it. Especially if you are treating it as a black box.

- Collapse -
Not to make light of this, but...
Mar 9, 2008 3:36AM PDT

they must be members of DAMM (Drunks Aganst Mad Mothers).

Just kidding!

- Collapse -
No brainer
Mar 10, 2008 2:49AM PDT

That's the first card lawyers play. If there is ANY problem with the breathalyser, i.e. improperly calibrated, you go free.