« If you ever spat from a tower… | Main | In the UK, Gmail now stands for greedy mail »
Drunk drivers ask judge to open breathalyser source code
A group of more than 150 defendants accused of driving under the influence of alcohol are asking a judge to give them the source code of the device that police used to prove their guilt.
The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. A computer does a calculation and tells me I'm guilty (of being drunk). But who says that the computer is right? As long as computer programmes have bugs, there is a chance that they will cause me to get wrongly convicted.
The DUI case is real, and will come before panel of Florida judges this Friday.
But surely the state of Florida has certified these Intoxilyzer 5000 machines?
Yes, back in 1993 they have. The manufacturer, CMI (with the great URL: Alcoholtest.com) has since made changes to both the hardware and the software.
In once case the company even shipped the device with a bug and had to recall it. The bug was rather obvious. The breathalyser takes two breath samples. If the results of those aren't within a certain range, it will tell the officer to take a third sample. But in this case the application was challenging correct samples and didn't challenge incorrect ones. So don't say that the machine can't have bugs.
It gets even more fun. Theoretically a judge could force CMI to open the application's source code, but this is highly unlikely. The company, which refused to discuss the case, instead claims that the software code for the 25-year-old device is a trade secret. Never mind that the actually application is less than 24 kilobytes in size (yes, kB) and still runs on z80 processors that were introduced in 1976.
It seems that there are plenty of reasons for the defendants that justify taking a closer look at the source code for this device. And if previous rulings are any guideline, they have a pretty good chance that their request will be honoured.
While the ancient technology being used gives you a feeling of the 'state of the art factor' of these trade secrets, it also indicates that this case will only have a limited impact acting as a legal precedent.
But just for the sake of it, let's think what other applications have closed source codes and could cause harm to individuals….? Oh wait, I'll make this one easy: which application doesn't?
Speed detection lasers, credit card transaction software, software with utility companies that calculates you monthly phone and gas bill would just be a few examples. Wonder how far we can take this.
tags: open source, dui, Intoxilyzer 5000
October 19, 2005 at 09:48 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/24766/3411293
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Drunk drivers ask judge to open breathalyser source code:
» Accused drunks demand breathalyser source code. from dylan :-: blog
I thought this was kind of funny.
... [Read More]
Tracked on 21 Oct 2005 01:35:39
Comments
You go to a bar. Someone buys you ten beers. So your intoxication was free as in beer. Then you get pulled over and get a breathalyzer test which gets thrown out of court because the software was not free as in speech. So then you walk out of court, free as in Willy!
Posted-by: commodoresloat | 20 Oct 2005 03:32:31
One of the easiest ways to get a speeding ticket overturned/dropped (at least in the UK) is to request all of the calibration reports for the particular camera/radar gun used to take your speed.
If the reports cannot be produced or are older/outside the statutory testing period, then the data produced by the machine will not hold up in court, and so the case will be dropped.
In some cases, the police simply cannot be bothered/do not have the time to do all of the necessary paperwork, and so the case may just be forgotten/ignored.
I don't know if this could be applied to a breathalyser, but it would be an interesting to see what would happen...
Posted-by: Burning Plastic | 20 Oct 2005 03:32:54
Sure, today some drunk is trying to get off the hook by saying that the software cannot be verified because it is not open. But tomorrow the gang bangers that raped your daughter will get off scott free because some library used in the DNA analyzing software is closed source and there's not a damn thing you can do about it!
Posted-by: Slippery Slope Guy. | 20 Oct 2005 03:33:33
If, ideally, the government exists soley for it's citizens. Would it be in our best interest to be able to view the source code of non classified projects? If the government is in fact using our tax dollars to pay programmers, should we be entitled to view the outcome of their work and does it become public domain if paid for by public funds?
Posted-by: MacFury | 20 Oct 2005 03:34:13
The reason there's no push for this is that for most people, making code open source doesn't actually improve their access to it. For 99.999 percent of the US population (and, I'd wager, a solid majority of Slashdot readers), an open source breathalyzer is still a mysterious box. The only difference is that you could get a computer scientist who doesn't work for the manufacturer to explain it. Now I do think that this is important (especially when it comes to voting machines) but for most people it probably doesn't come across as a great blow for openness and freedom.
Posted-by: jfruhlinger | 20 Oct 2005 03:35:04
I'm still wondering if this is being used as a legalistic loophole or an honest concern about false arrest. I mean, there is a blood test that has been shown to be just as good or better than a breathalizer.
Posted-by: rob_squared | 20 Oct 2005 03:37:14
"...making code open source doesn't actually improve their access to it. For 99.999 percent of the US population (and, I'd wager, a solid majority of Slashdot readers), an open source breathalyzer is still a mysterious box. The only difference is that you could get a computer scientist who doesn't work for the manufacturer to explain it."
Actually, in "due process" terms, my expert provides factual details about the technology, or science, of the fingerprint, blood stain, DNA, or any of thousands of technical details, to the Court, to enable proper "due process" and a fair result, in civil and criminal proceedings.
Why NOT permit MY expert to analyze the software to determine if I could have been mistakenly charged, although I am innocent, until PROVEN guilty?
Posted-by: | 20 Oct 2005 15:50:12
I actually was a manager at a toxicology laboratory for several years and testified in many cases. It makes absolutely no difference whether the code is open source or not. What's relevant is whether the defense has access to it. Software can be closed source and still be reviewed. As a matter of fact, the judge could issue a subpoena to require the owners of the code to reveal it to the court.
Posted-by: Ned Wolf | 20 Oct 2005 17:00:19
"I just rinsed with mouthwash, officer."
Posted-by: J-Dizzle | 20 Oct 2005 17:13:58
I would like to do QA for the guys that make these machines!
Posted-by: Dave | 20 Oct 2005 17:22:10
even if the machine is wrong and the drop the DUI they can still charge you with DWI (driving while intoxicated)anyway so you still lose.
Posted-by: pj | 20 Oct 2005 17:40:34
Question I have is how do you calibrate a breathalizer?
Officer 1: "Joe here has drank 5 beers"
Calibration Official: "Ok Joe go ahead and blow into this tube"
Officer 2 (Joe): "That is an awfully big tube"
Calibration Official: "Wrong 'tube' Joe now close my fly and stand up" looks at Officer 1, "Next time limit the lightweight to 3 beers"
I think we can all see where this is going...
Posted-by: joe | 20 Oct 2005 18:25:24
Give me that little 24Kb program and I'll have it disassembled and commented overnight.
Trivial. Used to do that all the time, and I'm pretty sure these hands haven't lost their touch. Z80 assembly language? No problem.
David Kirschbaum
Toad Hall
Posted-by: David Kirschbaum | 20 Oct 2005 20:15:25
A) if you're going to drink and drive (even ONE beer, you're just stupid.
B) get yourself a $59 breathalyzer on eBay. They are probably pretty accurate to tell you not to drive after those 5 beers!
Posted-by: greg h | 21 Oct 2005 04:42:33
You just can't trust them!
Here is my own first hand experience with one of these junk science machines.
This experience started my fascination with the whole issue of DUI.
It was 1997, and just like millions of other Americans I had watched the TV news program, "Drunk Driving: License to Kill," that had aired a few weeks earlier.
Barbara Walters hosted it.
Just like the millions of other Americans that watch it I believed that it was truthful and factual. I came away convinced that Drunk Driving deserved more attention. In other words, I was suckered into believing the propaganda!
A few years later I found a recap of the problems with this program that describes them much better than I ever could. Its called Doing a number on Drunk Drivers and can be found here: http://www.roizen.com/ron/rr5.htm
In late 1997 I was a Service Manager for a national company that manufactured specialized communication equipment. Our customers were FORTUNE 500 companies, Government, industry, Military, State, Federal and many local law enforcement agency's.
While on a "ride along" with one of my service reps in late 97 we made a stop at a State Police barrack to do a P.M. check on some of our equipment. Our equipment was located in the same room along with their Intoxilyzer 5000's.
Upon entering the room I saw 4 troopers. There was packing material strewn all over the floor. They had just received a brand new Intoxilyzer 5000 from the manufacture that was to be added to the 2 they already had.
I let my rep go do his thing and proceeded to watch the troopers play with their new toy. The one in charge was a Sergeant.
I commented...
" Hey Serge, see you got a new one!
He replied jokingly; " Ya, Business is booming." "We need another one to keep up with the demand at nights."
I continued to watch as the Sergeant explained to the Troopers the workings of the Machine. The three other Troopers appeared to be rookies.
The Sergeant explained, while pointing to the paperwork that came with the machine, how it was tested and calibrated at the factory before being sent to them.
The Sergeant also explained that because this was a new machine it would have to be certified by one of their technicians in the forensics department before it could legally be put into service. Once Certified and put into service every blow, test, or calibration check would have to be recorded in the books.
Because this machine had not yet been Certified he could use it to demonstrate to them how it works.
The Sergeant went on to say....
Quote:
"The machine performs it's own self check and if there is anything wrong it will let you know and not let you proceed.
You can trust the machine!!!!!"
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
You can trust the machine!!!!!
I found that to be quite amusing.
At that time I had some 30 technicians working under me.
Many of them had Bachelor of Science degrees in electronics.
I was no slouch, but some of them knew a hell of lot more about electronics than me.
Even though I cannot count the number of times that I had one of these highly trained and educated techs call me up while working on some piece of equipment and tell me that their test instrument was given them a reading that I knew was just plain wrong.
I would tell them if they would just stop for a second and think about it they would realize that the particular piece of equipment they were working on could not produce that kind of reading.
A simple analogy would be hooking up a volt meter to a 9 volt battery only to have the volt meter tell you that the 9 volt battery was producing 100 volts! Not very likely!
They would reply:
"Ya, you know your right!"
"Then what do you really think your problem is?."
"Well,..Gee.. I guess there has to be something wrong with my test equipment"
"BINGO"
I found that these highly educated individuals often had a tendency to just except what ever their instruments were telling them without thinking about it.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Back to the story.
The machine has now finish warming up and completed its " Self Check " and reports in its LED display..
Quote:
" I'm OK You can trust me, Really!"
The Sergeant inserted a brand new sterilized mouthpiece and turns to me as says.
"Hey buddy, How about helping me demonstrate this new machine to these guys."
I replied: " Sure, what do you want me to do?"
"I want you to blow into this tube for me".
I hesitate and say " Well you go first."
The Sergeant rolled his eyes back, shrugs and proceeds to blow into the machine while the other 3 troopers and I are watching.
To our surprise the LED display on the machine shows that the Sergeant has a BAC of .047 and it even prints it out!
The Sergeant starts to mumble..
" What the f@Ck, ...There something f@cked up here".
The Sergeant resets the machine and inserts another mouthpiece and instructs one of the three troopers to blow into it.
The reading shows this trooper to have a BAC of .058.
Now as this is happing the Captain walks in and says:
"What the hell is going on here?".
The Sergeant replies,
" Honest Cap, there something wrong with this new machine."
So the Captain gives a go at it.
SURPRISE SURPRISE!
The machine says the Captain has a BAC of .078, just under the legal limit.
The Sergeant and the other troopers are laughing.
The Sergeant Says : "See Cap, were all just drunks".
The Captain is not laughing however.
He picks up the phone and calls the forensics technical department and gets a tech on the phone and starts to lay into him. The tech is based in another facility only few blocks away and says he will be right over.
I tell my guy who has finished up by now to go take lunch and pick me up when he is done. I wanted to hang around to see what happens.
The captain leaves and I keep the Sergeant company while he is waiting for the tech to arrive. The Sergeant turns to me and says..
" You know, you were smart in not blowing into it when I asked you to".
I told Sergeant that I do not TRUST any machine and my reasons why.
The Sergeant replies:
"Your right." "My computer at home keeps telling me that I have preformed and illegal operation."
"I keep telling it that I did not, and I should know cuz I'm a cop. But it just doesn't seem to give a shit!"
The tech shows up and runs his Certification tests.
He has the manufactures service manual out and some form that he checks off after each test that he completes.
He has an apparatus that has a wet alcohol solution that's certified to be .08, which he connects to the machine.
After about 20 minuets he tells the Sergeant that the machine has passed all calibration tests and is ready to be Certified and put into operation.
About this time the Captain walked back in the room and asks..
"Well what did you find out?"
The Sergeant tells the Captain that the machine checks out and is ok.
The Captain walks up to the tech and asks him.
" Are you telling me that you did not find any thing wrong with that machine?"
I gave the Sergeant a nudge and whispered to him
"Hey Serge, Why don't you have the tech try it??
The Sergeant asks the tech in an accusing voice.
"Have you been drinking??"
The surprised tech answered with a no.
Sergeant: "So if you were to blow into that machine it should read 00, right?"
The tech answers: " Ya"
At which point the Captain picks up a new mouthpiece and hands it to the tech and says :
"I want YOU to blow into that machine"
The tech complies and to his surprise the machine registers a .072 BAC for him.
The tech is now just staring at the machine while the Captain is towering over him and yelling.
"What's wrong with this thing"
"I don't know" says the tech."
"I followed all of the procedures in the book ....." says the tech."
The Captain replies: "Well what are you going to do about it?""
Tech: "I don't know, I guess I should call the manufactures support line."
Captain: "Well why don't you just do just that" and he hands the tech the phone.
The tech try's to explain the situation to the manufacture's rep located some where in Kentucky.
The rep apparently does not grasp the seriousness of the situation and I guess is asking the tech if he had tried this and that. The Captain sensing this grabs the phone out of the tech's hand and proceeds to lay into the manufactures rep.
Captain: " Your fricking machine is telling me that I'm drunk, not only that, it saying that my troopers and my technician are drunk. What are you going to do about it!"
A couple of seconds go by and the Captain says " You dam well better" and hands the phone back to the tech.
The Captain leaves the room.
The tech closes the call and hangs up.
Sergeant: " Well what did they say?"
Tech: " They want me to send this one back, They are sending out a replacement tonight"
Sergeant: "Did they tell you what they thought was wrong?"
Tech: " They think is a bad program in the EPROM"?
The Sergeant looks at me and shrugs.
As I was leaving I ran into one of the rookies who asked me what transpired after he had left.
The rookie stated that after what he saw he would never blow into one of those machines.
I said; " But aren't you going ask all of the drunk drivers that you arrest to do just that?"
There was no reply.
I said : "Well you better make sure they’re dam good and drunk before for you do."
Rookie: Ya, if there not there gona get screwed!"
So here we had a machine that would test "right on the mark" when it was tested by following the manufactures procedures.
Yet when REAL HUMAN' BEINGS, with no alcohol in their systems blew into the same machine it would give an indication of alcohol in their systems.
So what was going on here????
Obviously the machine was able to accurately detect alcohol under simulated tests conditions..
But it seems it was also detecting something else when real human's blew into it that was not alcohol but never the less was counted as alcohol.
So if these troopers had not played around with this machine the tech would have certified this defective machine as it was and allowed it to be put into service.
Any one who had consumed any alcohol at all or used a breath spray or inhaler would certainly have been found guilty by this machine.
Posted-by: MD | 21 Oct 2005 14:43:16
dont they have a doctor take a bloodtest once your "busted" with the breathalyser?
Posted-by: Morten Sørensen | 24 Oct 2005 01:44:57
Morten Sørensen asked>>
>
In all states the laws now refer to alcohol BLOOD or BREATH content as if they were one in the same. If either one is over the limit your busted.
In most sates they only use the breath tests results. (BrAC) ..Breath alcohol Content.. in lue of the (BAC) Blood alcohol content.
Blood tests take time and cost money. In addition they are real physical evidence that can be independently verified, unlike the breath tests that leave no verifiable evidence behind.
With the breath tests you just have trust the machine like the poster MD says. They say Blood and Breath are the same but that's like saying apples and oranges are one in the same just because they both are call a fruit.
In order to be "impaired" by alcohol, even to the slightest degree, the alcohol must be in a person's blood so it can reach the brain and effect their central nervous system. These machines DO NOT measure the alcohol in a person blood but what is said to be the amount of alcohol that is alleged to be in their breath. According the the 'Theory" that these machines a premised on they are supposedly able to determine the amount of alcohol in a persons blood by measuring the content on their breath.
In some place like Arizona where they have been caught screwing around with these machine numerous times they have now turned to rely solely on blood tests because judges no longer trust them. The thing is police officers are the ones drawing the blood and not doctors. And If you object to them sticking you they will hold down and repeatedly put A Tazer gun to the Back of you neck until you either agree or pass out.
http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447485
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=091703a1_taser
Posted-by: Jim Dean | 29 Oct 2005 17:42:02
In most states the police officer decides what test is to be administered. Blood, Breath, or urine. The accused has has no right to request what test to take. Only in a few states does the accused have the right to request a blood test, but the police never tell them that.
Blood is only taken when injures or death is concerned because prosecuting some one for manslaughter on a breath test alone is not sufficient.
The fact is 90% of the 1.5 to 2 million people who are prosecuted for "drunk driving each year in this country involve only a breath test. Now that very state has an "per se law" they no longer have to prove than a person was drunk or even impaired. All they have to prove is that they were driving a car and their BrAC was .08 or more.
Many people who are arrested for DUI of alcohol are unable to get a independent blood test preformed because the police are now allowed to keep them locked up for 8 to 16 hours AFTER POSTING THEIR BOND! Even people who are arrested for DUI of alcohol who blow .000 are still lock up after posting their bond.
This court case about the breath testing machines is taken place down in Florida.
I wonder how funny Dylan would think it was if he was busted for DUI of alcohol and thrown in jail despite not having consumed a drop of alcohol like this Floridian was. He blew .000 and his urine test came back clean. Yet he was locked up after posting his bound and held for 8 hours. Two years later his mug shot still appears on the police web site for his false arrest. http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/qdisp/bn=03059764
This is just typical of what is happing to thousands of innocent people each year in this county.
"A good citizen shouldn't be afraid of the police, they should believe in them and trust in them. They're there to protect and serve. And who were they protecting and serving by arresting me?"
http://www.abcactionnews.com/video/news/2004/02/0219dui.html
Posted-by: Jim Dean | 29 Oct 2005 18:26:27
In central PA at least, they give you a Breath test on site (which you can refuse, in which case they take you to get a blood test at the hospital), or if your anywhere close to .08 on the breath test they can take you down to the hospital to get a blood test. The only thing this isn't standard procedure, is in a ZT situation, ie. underage drinking.
For example, after having a little to drink, and then driving home, I got pulled over was given a Breath test which read .012, and was given my ticket and told to go home. I could have requested to be taken to the hospital for a blood test, but I just wanted to go home, and since I was under .02 I didn't want to chance the breath test being inaccurate, and a blood test showing I was above .02 and have it considered a DUI (.02 is minor DUI limit).
Now back to the main issue, if I was wrongly accused of drinking, I would want proof that the machine is working properly, and be able to examine the software and the hardware schematics. Now this doesn't mean I'm going to take the time to look at every single detail of how the machine works (like the chemistry of measuring the input used for calculating the alcohol content, but I should have the right to have an expert, or even a friend familiar with the subject to be able to know how it works and explain it to me or a judge.)
Posted-by: Sam Leathers | 14 Nov 2005 07:39:34
Can anybody help -
take this situation -
A lad gets road side breatherlised and blowes a red fail), goes to the police station to the big machine,2 breath reading are to be taken then the lower reading is used as evidence, blow one takes reading of 50mg in100 breath (in the uk the limit is 35mg per 100mg breath), BUT blow 2 is taaken but machine takes no reading, this goes on for another 4 times and NO 2ND reading is taken. what happens next what will happen when the person is at court, please let me know and email me with any info. MOST APPRICIATED! (PLUS THE PERSON IN QUESTION ALSO HAD CONSUMED A LITTLE ALCOHOL AFTER DRIVING CEASED)
Posted-by: chris | 13 Mar 2006 19:36:40
Spanish
