TFA: The Kentucky company that makes the Intoxilyzer says the code is a trade secret and has refused to release it, thus complicating DWI prosecutions.

I'm not an open source fanboy, but any government system that is used to prosecute people, solve crimes, handle elections damn well should be open source.

Otherwise law enforcement essentially works like this:

Police: Computer says you're drunk.

Driver: How does it know?

Police: It just does.

I think this is brilliant. Finally, a judge has seen past the dollar signs that DUI cases bring in, and realized that a breathalyzer isn't always accurate.

PROTIP: The timers on those machines, and the police instructions, are designed to get you to empty your lungs since there is a higher concentration of alcohol in the air at the end of the breath. Not because it's accurate, but because it raises your numbers.

This is great news! It's my RIGHT to drive drunk! DUIs are nothing more than a cash grab by greedy and corrupt government officials!

Good! If they can't prove the reliability of their machines, they shouldn't be using them as evidence.

The sad thing is that this seems like it would just be common sense, yet we cheer because we know how corrupt the system is, and expected it to just not care about citizen's rights.

I'm glad there's at least one judge (or group of judges) still has some integrity left.

I'm getting a kick out of these replies as I'm gargling before going for a drive

In before Richard Stallman

Maybe someone could homebrew a reliable program.

Good. The DUI is far too much of an exception to the constitution, and those practices need to be fought.

If we actually cared about safety on the road instead of fee-gathering, we would measure reaction time and other things actually relevant to driving in an objective manner. I don't give a fark what you are or are not on; if you can't pass a reaction-time test, you shouldn't be driving.

Given the state of video games these days, such a test-device should be amazingly cheap to make. Probably no more expensive than these breath-testers.

Sygonus: This is great news! It's my RIGHT to drive drunk!

It's your right to not be arrested for DUI if you're not driving drunk, yes.

There's a reason why states love the "Intoxilyzer"... it claims to be more "Accurate," meaning it always seems to work out in the cops' favor. Fancy that.

Sygonus: This is great news! It's my RIGHT to drive drunk! DUIs are nothing more than a cash grab by greedy and corrupt government officials!

No, it's your right to face your accuser in court. The intoxilyzer is "accusing" you of being drunk, but you can't challenge its presumptions in court because the company won't release the code. How does anyone know if they're really accurate or not?

pdkl95: Good. The DUI is far too much of an exception to the constitution, and those practices need to be fought.

If we actually cared about safety on the road instead of fee-gathering, we would measure reaction time and other things actually relevant to driving in an objective manner. I don't give a fark what you are or are not on; if you can't pass a reaction-time test, you shouldn't be driving.

Given the state of video games these days, such a test-device should be amazingly cheap to make. Probably no more expensive than these breath-testers.





/hot
//or not

bubbaprog: It's your right to not be arrested for DUI if you're not driving drunk, yes.

What pisses me off is that you don't even have to be at or over the legal limit to be arrested for impaired driving. They can still charge you with impaired driving which carries almost all of the same fines and punishment as a DUI.

I got in an arguement with my father about this. He honestly believes there's no violation of the fifth ammendment, false-positives are worth catching legit drunk drivers, and it's ok to convict someone on-the-spot for refusing a breath test.

I think this brings up a bigger question about how farking retarded this breathalyzer company is.

Basically, the Supreme Court has nerfed the usability of these machines until they can be proven accurate. The manufacturer doesn't want to have to prove they are accurate citing 'trade secrets'. But, if these machines can't be used anymore does it really matter if your trade secret is still secret when nobody is buying your machines any longer because they're now useless?

1.The state's highest court ruled that defendants in drunken-driving cases have the right to make prosecutors turn over the computer "source code" that runs the Intoxilyzer breath-testing device to determine whether the device's results are reliable.

2.But there's a problem: Prosecutors can't turn over the code because they don't have it.

3.The Kentucky company that makes the Intoxilyzer says the code is a trade secret and has refused to release it, thus complicating DWI prosecutions.

4. A bunch of DWI cases get dismissed, others have their cases changed. Still others plea down since the prosecutor knows they needed the breathalyzer results to really stick it.

5. Police departments replace the Intoxilyzer with a breathalyzer from a company that WILL release it's code, under the agreement that said code is protected. Taxpayers get charged a buttload of money.

/I'm biased because my wife got a DUI due to being asleep drunk in the back seat of the car... with her keys on the seat beside her.

MIguy: bubbaprog: It's your right to not be arrested for DUI if you're not driving drunk, yes.

What pisses me off is that you don't even have to be at or over the legal limit to be arrested for impaired driving. They can still charge you with impaired driving which carries almost all of the same fines and punishment as a DUI.

Because there are some people who even though they aren't at the legal limit are too intoxicated to drive.

Sygonus: This is great news! It's my RIGHT to drive drunk! DUIs are nothing more than a cash grab by greedy and corrupt government officials!

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/obvious_troll.jpg

legrandbatard: I'm getting a kick out of these replies as I'm gargling before going for a drive



Protip: Don't use alcohol based mouthwash if you are going to take a breathalyzer test...

Flapjack727: Sygonus: This is great news! It's my RIGHT to drive drunk! DUIs are nothing more than a cash grab by greedy and corrupt government officials!

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/obvious_troll.jpg

Man I'm tired today

working on the same argument for traffic cameras.
had one take my pic while stopped.

/are the calibrated? if so, how?
//software?

Sygonus: This is great news! It's my RIGHT to drive drunk! DUIs are nothing more than a cash grab by greedy and corrupt government officials!

9/10

Short, sweet, and to the trollastic point.

downstairs: TFA: The Kentucky company that makes the Intoxilyzer says the code is a trade secret and has refused to release it, thus complicating DWI prosecutions.

I'm not an open source fanboy, but any government system that is used to prosecute people, solve crimes, handle elections damn well should be open source.

Otherwise law enforcement essentially works like this:

Police: Computer says you're drunk.

Driver: How does it know?

Police: It just does.

A thousand times THIS

Likuid000: but you can't challenge its presumptions in court

Not sure of the law in other states but in Michigan, you have the right to ask for a blood test once you get to the station. You can even request that it be drawn from a place of your choosing as long as you agree to pay the cost.

The one thing you never want to do is agree to field sobriety tests. They are designed to make you fail and gives the cop all the evidence they need to charge you with impaired driving.

So some asshole is convicted of driving at more than TWICE the legal limit, and this is the defense? Even if it was coded by monkeys, the margin of error cannot be more than 100%.

JamesLi: MIguy: bubbaprog: It's your right to not be arrested for DUI if you're not driving drunk, yes.

What pisses me off is that you don't even have to be at or over the legal limit to be arrested for impaired driving. They can still charge you with impaired driving which carries almost all of the same fines and punishment as a DUI.

Because there are some people who even though they aren't at the legal limit are too intoxicated to drive.

And, at the same time, some people above .08 are perfectly capable of driving more safely than others who are 100% sober.

JamesLi [TotalFark]
Because there are some people who even though they aren't at the legal limit are too intoxicated to drive.

There are millions of drivers on the road who are too old to drive too, but we don't arrest THEM.
Being intoxicated (even a little) is A FACTOR in poor driving. However it seems to be the only one you can be arrested for and have your life ruined under.
I know a girl (yes she's asian. Racists) who has been in four accidents in the past two years. All of them were her fault. No arrests, no loss of license. Why? She's obviously too intoxicated to drive, even though she doesn't drink.

And I was beaten by bubbaprog too

/just bad luck I guess

People who drive drunk are the lowest scum on Earth.

I want to make sure I get this right:

Loopholes are bad when corporate execs swindle millions.

Loopholes are good when drunk drivers get off.

/agrees the source code needs to be public
//doesn't think it should affect previous convictions, assuming they have other evidence

MIguy: Likuid000: but you can't challenge its presumptions in court

Not sure of the law in other states but in Michigan, you have the right to ask for a blood test once you get to the station. You can even request that it be drawn from a place of your choosing as long as you agree to pay the cost.

The one thing you never want to do is agree to field sobriety tests. They are designed to make you fail and gives the cop all the evidence they need to charge you with impaired driving.

What the hell are you talking about? That's the same as people saying "Don't answer the police if they ask you why they pulled you over, YOU'RE JUST GIVING THEM EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU OMG!"

MIguy: The one thing you never want to do is agree to field sobriety tests. They are designed to make you fail and gives the cop all the evidence they need to charge you with impaired driving.

We've been through this before in a very recent thread. In several states, the penalties for refusing a breathalyzer are more strict than actually getting a DUI.

/you have nothing to hide, right, citizen?

filter
So some asshole is convicted of driving at more than TWICE the legal limit, and this is the defense? Even if it was coded by monkeys, the margin of error cannot be more than 100%.

That's why they call it "getting out on a technicality". Because the defense does not have to prove that there was some massive testing error; they only have to show that there COULD have been a 100%+ error and it is then up to the prosecution to PROVE that there was not an error.

Computer code farks up all the time.
Coders are lazy bastards.
Run most code enough times and you'll get a WTF result.

/Coder

Ponzholio: legrandbatard: I'm getting a kick out of these replies as I'm gargling before going for a drive



Protip: Don't use alcohol based mouthwash if you are going to take a breathalyzer test...

that's like saying: if you're going to accidentally cut yourself, make sure the blade is sterilized and you have bandages nearby. I don't think anyone goes to take a breathalyzer test

lunging_man_ass: I think this brings up a bigger question about how farking retarded this breathalyzer company is.

Basically, the Supreme Court has nerfed the usability of these machines until they can be proven accurate. The manufacturer doesn't want to have to prove they are accurate citing 'trade secrets'. But, if these machines can't be used anymore does it really matter if your trade secret is still secret when nobody is buying your machines any longer because they're now useless?

hehehe I thought the same thing.
management wizards!!

JamesLi: What the hell are you talking about? That's the same as people saying "Don't answer the police if they ask you why they pulled you over, YOU'RE JUST GIVING THEM EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU OMG!"

I supposed you have something against Carmen Miranda music, too...

Hiro Nakamura [TotalFark]
We've been through this before in a very recent thread. In several states, the penalties for refusing a breathalyzer are more strict than actually getting a DUI.

He meant the stupid human tricks.
They usually ask you to do the breathalyzer, THEN get out of the car, THEN do stupid human tricks.

You only get stupid human tricks if you PASS the breath test in most cases. If you fail, they just arrest you.
If you're right on the edge they might want to tape you having sub-gymnastic balance so that they can back up the breath test results in court, but usually not.

/Couldn't pass half those tests sober.

Law enforcement is using questionable technology again? No way!

Ontario's Increased license suspensions for drinking and driving (new window)

Here's a good reason to be concerned about the accuracy of road side tests. In Ontario CA, now you'll lose your license (and your vehicle) without even breaking the law. Blow a "legal" 0.05 & your car is towed.

Hiro Nakamura: We've been through this before in a very recent thread. In several states, the penalties for refusing a breathalyzer are more strict than actually getting a DUI.

I said field sobriety tests, not a breathalyzer. Now that you mention it, I'll mention that the only penalty for refusing a roadside breathalyzer in Michigan is a 200 dollar fine. It's the test at the station that leads to the automatic license suspension. I'd imagine this is because that the hand held units are notoriously inaccurate and I'd expect the law to be similar in many other states.

downstairs: TFA: The Kentucky company that makes the Intoxilyzer says the code is a trade secret and has refused to release it, thus complicating DWI prosecutions.

I'm not an open source fanboy, but any government system that is used to prosecute people, solve crimes, handle elections damn well should be open source.

Total agreement here. My city set up red light cameras all over the place and was collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in fines. When defendants tried to get the camera schematics and source code thru discovery, the manufacturer threatened them with lawsuits regarding their "trade secrets". I'd make it a state law that any device used in a law enforcement capacity that can result in a fine or imprisonment must have its complete design disclosed so that it can be examined for flaws. Don't want your trade secrets disclosed? Then sell your crap elsewhere.

I have a hard time understanding the stance a number of you are taking on this topic/article.

1) The judge didn't say breathalyzers are illegal, immoral, or infringe upon people's rights, or a bad thing.

2) As with any scientific test, it is something subject to being proved a valid means to gather evidence (DNA, finger prints, etc., all had to at some point in court) and subject to being challenged by the defense.

3) The fact that the code can not be reviewed by the defense's experts for accuracy, invalidates the use of that evidence.

4) The physical coordination testing, pupil review, police car cameras, smelling alcohol, and physical blood testing are all still valid methods of gathering evidence to convict DUI/DWI offenders.

5) Getting drunks off the road is the primary purpose for the offense in this case. Not collecting money by the local officials.

/Still agree the testing method needs to be proven to be XX% accurate before it can be used for evidence.

Aevum:
/I'm biased because my wife got a DUI due to being asleep drunk in the back seat of the car... with her keys on the seat beside her.

How the fark does that even work?

That just encourages her to actually drive drunk the next time because, hey, I'm less likely to get caught if I just get home.

That just doesn't even make a damn lick of sense. How did the pigs argue their case?

MIguy: I said field sobriety tests, not a breathalyzer. Now that you mention it, I'll mention that the only penalty for refusing a roadside breathalyzer in Michigan is a 200 dollar fine. It's the test at the station that leads to the automatic license suspension. I'd imagine this is because that the hand held units are notoriously inaccurate and I'd expect the law to be similar in many other states.

My bad, I misunderstood. But you'd be surprised. In Illinois and several other states that were mentioned the other day, you face a longer license suspension for refusing the breathalyzer than actually blowing hot. It's retarded and unconstitutional.

Oh, and I just remembered it was a TFD thread so I guess you would have missed it anyway.

Aevum: Hiro Nakamura [TotalFark]
We've been through this before in a very recent thread. In several states, the penalties for refusing a breathalyzer are more strict than actually getting a DUI.

He meant the stupid human tricks.
They usually ask you to do the breathalyzer, THEN get out of the car, THEN do stupid human tricks.

You only get stupid human tricks if you PASS the breath test in most cases. If you fail, they just arrest you.
If you're right on the edge they might want to tape you having sub-gymnastic balance so that they can back up the breath test results in court, but usually not.

/Couldn't pass half those tests sober.

That's not been my experience. Usually they start by telling you to put out your cigarette (as that can affect the breathalyzer). Then they'll give you the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Then they'll ask you to get out and do some FSTs.

That's been my experience anyway. They never got as far as asking me to blow.

Rule #1 of driving after having a drink (or 7) is to NOT get pulled over in the first place.

Vanetia [TotalFark]
How the fark does that even work?
Nevada. Having the car keys accessible to you while in the car can be used as "intent to drive" which counts as DWI. They allowed it so that cops can bust the drunk drivers before they actually pull out into traffic and hit something/someone.

That just encourages her to actually drive drunk the next time because, hey, I'm less likely to get caught if I just get home.

Actually we're usually intelligent people, so it just encouraged us to either plan better, or hide the keys in the trunk if we go to sleep it off.

That just doesn't even make a damn lick of sense. How did the pigs argue their case?

They swore under oath that they hood was hot. Combine that with the fact that she was curbside parked and they took it as proof she MUST have been driving drunk before pulling over to sleep it off.

/Also had the public defender, so I'm sure that didn't help.

Aevum: Hiro Nakamura [TotalFark]
We've been through this before in a very recent thread. In several states, the penalties for refusing a breathalyzer are more strict than actually getting a DUI.

He meant the stupid human tricks.
They usually ask you to do the breathalyzer, THEN get out of the car, THEN do stupid human tricks.

What drugs are you smoking? They don't give breathalyzers unless they have a reason to. You either smell like a brewery, slurring your speech, or can't pass the stupid human tricks.


You only get stupid human tricks if you PASS the breath test in most cases. If you fail, they just arrest you.
If you're right on the edge they might want to tape you having sub-gymnastic balance so that they can back up the breath test results in court, but usually not.


/Couldn't pass half those tests sober.

That doesn't surprise me. Can you chew bubble gum and walk at the same time?

Hiro Nakamura: My bad, I misunderstood. But you'd be surprised. In Illinois and several other states that were mentioned the other day, you face a longer license suspension for refusing the breathalyzer than actually blowing hot. It's retarded and unconstitutional.

Yeah, the rules are all over the place. A coworker of mine recently got popped for driving impaired after being pulled over leaving the bar after a few beers. He blew a .06 but was still charged with and convicted of impaired driving. I started looking into the Michigan laws and realized that there's a lot of bullshiat going on.

jjorsett: downstairs: TFA: The Kentucky company that makes the Intoxilyzer says the code is a trade secret and has refused to release it, thus complicating DWI prosecutions.

I'm not an open source fanboy, but any government system that is used to prosecute people, solve crimes, handle elections damn well should be open source.

Total agreement here. My city set up red light cameras all over the place and was collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in fines. When defendants tried to get the camera schematics and source code thru discovery, the manufacturer threatened them with lawsuits regarding their "trade secrets". I'd make it a state law that any device used in a law enforcement capacity that can result in a fine or imprisonment must have its complete design disclosed so that it can be examined for flaws. Don't want your trade secrets disclosed? Then sell your crap elsewhere.

Which reminds me, the electronic voting machines - did they release the source code for review?

Or could there be a problem witht the presidential elections too?

The odd thing here is, it isn't unusual for both sides - prosecution and defense - to agree to some third party that is sworn to secrecy and that can take a look at the source code. This happens all the time in cases that involve trade secrets. So I'm confused as to why the company absolutely refuses. Reminds one of Diebold in their voter machine lawsuits - if they can't even agree to let a neutral third party come in and verify things under an NDA, then, more likely than not, something is wrong they don't want you to know about.

The software in this breathalyzer machine has been patched and/or updated multiple times - why was it patched? What was it changing? What bugs were present? These, at the minimum, are things that might be important to know. Was there a glitched that sometimes caused an error? No one knows, save the people that won't tell you.

To give an example of why things like this can matter - consider the Zune. The Zune had a weird and undetected software glitch that affected a single model of the hardware, with a single firmware revision, and only on a single day of the year, last year, rendering them inoperable for a day. Now consider these machines - while it's unlikely, who knows whether the 8th reading of the night for some reason is doubled, or on Thursdays they give lower results, or any other weird stuff. And these things are used to convict people of crimes. There should be some ability to know, barring taking the company's word, that these things are going to function properly.