Drunk driving cases turn on source code

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

I demand the source code to Microsoft Word to determine whether or not their Word Count feature is accurate!

Don't be retarded. If an innacurate word count could land you in prision then you might have an argument. :roll:

If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.

Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.

So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?

Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propreiety code running on very important machines + corrupt government might not always mean libery and justice for all.

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

Also, a lawyer and some drunk are going to be able to test and understand the source code of a relatively complex machine? Complex at least to the lawyer and defendant is what I should say. And then the people that analyze the machine, those hired by MADD or those funded by defendant sponsored advocacy group, are going to be so unbiased when doing testing?

Independent means exactly that - it goes both ways. Independent of the government, of the manufacturer, no ties to various advocacy groups, etc.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
that is disgusting.

i hate when ppl do bad stuff the use a technicality in the system to skate from their guilt.

and i hate it when people are not allowed to fully defend themselves because of "trade secrets".

So, a drunk driver should skate? They are not defending themselves because they are innocent. They are doing so by trying to get off on a technicality. To me, there is a huge difference.

I say if someone can get off on a technicality for a crime, more power to him. The state's responsibility is to prevent those technicalities. What's more is they will screw you based on a technicality any chance they get.

Maybe you'd rethink that if someone ever hurt your loved ones and skated as a result of a technicallity.

You'd also think different if you or your loved ones were falsely prosecuted because of a faulty proprietary machine.

Voltaire, a man much wiser than you or I said, "It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. "

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

I demand the source code to Microsoft Word to determine whether or not their Word Count feature is accurate!

Don't be retarded. If an innacurate word count could land you in prision then you might have an argument. :roll:

If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.

Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.

So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?

Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propreiety code running on very important machines + corrupt government might not always mean libery and justice for all.

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

Also, a lawyer and some drunk are going to be able to test and understand the source code of a relatively complex machine? Complex at least to the lawyer and defendant is what I should say. And then the people that analyze the machine, those hired by MADD or those funded by defendant sponsored advocacy group, are going to be so unbiased when doing testing?

Independent means exactly that - it goes both ways. Independent of the government, of the manufacturer, no ties to various advocacy groups, etc.

Good luck finding one of those.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
that is disgusting.

i hate when ppl do bad stuff the use a technicality in the system to skate from their guilt.

and i hate it when people are not allowed to fully defend themselves because of "trade secrets".

So, a drunk driver should skate? They are not defending themselves because they are innocent. They are doing so by trying to get off on a technicality. To me, there is a huge difference.

I say if someone can get off on a technicality for a crime, more power to him. The state's responsibility is to prevent those technicalities. What's more is they will screw you based on a technicality any chance they get.

Maybe you'd rethink that if someone ever hurt your loved ones and skated as a result of a technicallity.

You'd also think different if you or your loved ones were falsely prosecuted because of a faulty proprietary machine.

Voltaire, a man much wiser than you or I said, "It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. "

Then make blood testing a mandatory additional test if you test for DWI/DUI. That'll make pretty damn sure there are no false positives.

 

[j00fek]

ill be asking for this when i get a dui thanks

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

I demand the source code to Microsoft Word to determine whether or not their Word Count feature is accurate!

Don't be retarded. If an innacurate word count could land you in prision then you might have an argument. :roll:

If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.

Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.

So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?

Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propreiety code running on very important machines + corrupt government might not always mean libery and justice for all.

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

Also, a lawyer and some drunk are going to be able to test and understand the source code of a relatively complex machine? Complex at least to the lawyer and defendant is what I should say. And then the people that analyze the machine, those hired by MADD or those funded by defendant sponsored advocacy group, are going to be so unbiased when doing testing?

Independent means exactly that - it goes both ways. Independent of the government, of the manufacturer, no ties to various advocacy groups, etc.

Good luck finding one of those.

So since there are no independant groups, how do you propose we calibrate the machines?

 

[shimsham]

what a lot of you are forgetting is you can blow a .01 and still be charged and convicted for dui, and breathilyzers are not 100% accurate. hell, you can blow a .00 but if the cop thinks youre under the influence, you can still be charged.

so yes, lets just put all of our faith into human nature. cops dont lie, and a company would never trump up results to get arrests so they can keep their lucrative contract. not saying thats what happens, but when it comes to defending ones self from a criminal charge i dont see the problem with making sure these machines are accurate and on the up and up. if they are, i dont see what the problem is with releasing some code.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

I demand the source code to Microsoft Word to determine whether or not their Word Count feature is accurate!

Don't be retarded. If an innacurate word count could land you in prision then you might have an argument. :roll:

If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.

Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.

So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?

Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propreiety code running on very important machines + corrupt government might not always mean libery and justice for all.

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

Also, a lawyer and some drunk are going to be able to test and understand the source code of a relatively complex machine? Complex at least to the lawyer and defendant is what I should say. And then the people that analyze the machine, those hired by MADD or those funded by defendant sponsored advocacy group, are going to be so unbiased when doing testing?

Independent means exactly that - it goes both ways. Independent of the government, of the manufacturer, no ties to various advocacy groups, etc.

Good luck finding one of those.

So since there are no independant groups, how do you propose we calibrate the machines?

The same way you're going to be able to verify that the source code to the breathalyzer machine is the actual source code, that there weren't mislabeled varying sourc-codes issued on various revisions of the machine, and that it won't be disclosed to other companies under an NDA.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

Which you can't do without access to the source.

Uh... no. You are wrong. I work for a company that produces test devices (not at all related to breathalyzers). Do you think we give our customers our source code to prove our tests are accurate? No, that would be idiotic. We do field trials. You can prove a breathalyzer is accurate by testing it against methods that are known to be reliable.

Your "easter eggs" argument is just silly.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
that is disgusting.

i hate when ppl do bad stuff the use a technicality in the system to skate from their guilt.

and i hate it when people are not allowed to fully defend themselves because of "trade secrets".

So, a drunk driver should skate? They are not defending themselves because they are innocent. They are doing so by trying to get off on a technicality. To me, there is a huge difference.

I say if someone can get off on a technicality for a crime, more power to him. The state's responsibility is to prevent those technicalities. What's more is they will screw you based on a technicality any chance they get.

Maybe you'd rethink that if someone ever hurt your loved ones and skated as a result of a technicallity.

You'd also think different if you or your loved ones were falsely prosecuted because of a faulty proprietary machine.

Voltaire, a man much wiser than you or I said, "It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. "

Then make blood testing a mandatory additional test if you test for DWI/DUI. That'll make pretty damn sure there are no false positives.

What if someone was an ex-heroin addict and had no good veigns or if someone was seriously affraid of needles, so much that they would have a horrible panic attack if one got an inch near a vein?

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

I demand the source code to Microsoft Word to determine whether or not their Word Count feature is accurate!

Don't be retarded. If an innacurate word count could land you in prision then you might have an argument. :roll:

If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.

Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.

So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?

Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propreiety code running on very important machines + corrupt government might not always mean libery and justice for all.

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

Also, a lawyer and some drunk are going to be able to test and understand the source code of a relatively complex machine? Complex at least to the lawyer and defendant is what I should say. And then the people that analyze the machine, those hired by MADD or those funded by defendant sponsored advocacy group, are going to be so unbiased when doing testing?

Independent means exactly that - it goes both ways. Independent of the government, of the manufacturer, no ties to various advocacy groups, etc.

Good luck finding one of those.

So since there are no independant groups, how do you propose we calibrate the machines?

The same way you're going to be able to verify that the source code to the breathalyzer machine is the actual source code, that there weren't mislabeled varying sourc-codes issued on various revisions of the machine, and that it won't be disclosed to other companies under an NDA.

Hot damn, I never knew the conspiracy went that deep. :Q

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
that is disgusting.

i hate when ppl do bad stuff the use a technicality in the system to skate from their guilt.

and i hate it when people are not allowed to fully defend themselves because of "trade secrets".

So, a drunk driver should skate? They are not defending themselves because they are innocent. They are doing so by trying to get off on a technicality. To me, there is a huge difference.

I say if someone can get off on a technicality for a crime, more power to him. The state's responsibility is to prevent those technicalities. What's more is they will screw you based on a technicality any chance they get.

Maybe you'd rethink that if someone ever hurt your loved ones and skated as a result of a technicallity.

You'd also think different if you or your loved ones were falsely prosecuted because of a faulty proprietary machine.

Voltaire, a man much wiser than you or I said, "It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. "

Then make blood testing a mandatory additional test if you test for DWI/DUI. That'll make pretty damn sure there are no false positives.

What if someone was an ex-heroin addict and had no good veigns or if someone was seriously affraid of needles, so much that they would have a horrible panic attack if one got an inch near a vein?

Urine analysis, finger prick tests, or you take the results of the breathalyzer. Also, there are other veins you can use to draw blood if you have absolutely have to. Either that, or we go on the Cop's opinion of whether or not the subject was intoxicated.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

I demand the source code to Microsoft Word to determine whether or not their Word Count feature is accurate!

Don't be retarded. If an innacurate word count could land you in prision then you might have an argument. :roll:

If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.

Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.

So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?

Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propreiety code running on very important machines + corrupt government might not always mean libery and justice for all.

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

Also, a lawyer and some drunk are going to be able to test and understand the source code of a relatively complex machine? Complex at least to the lawyer and defendant is what I should say. And then the people that analyze the machine, those hired by MADD or those funded by defendant sponsored advocacy group, are going to be so unbiased when doing testing?

Independent means exactly that - it goes both ways. Independent of the government, of the manufacturer, no ties to various advocacy groups, etc.

Good luck finding one of those.

So since there are no independant groups, how do you propose we calibrate the machines?

The same way you're going to be able to verify that the source code to the breathalyzer machine is the actual source code, that there weren't mislabeled varying sourc-codes issued on various revisions of the machine, and that it won't be disclosed to other companies under an NDA.

Hot damn, I never knew the conspiracy went that deep. :Q

You better believe it.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

Which you can't do without access to the source.

Uh... no. You are wrong. I work for a company that produces test devices (not at all related to breathalyzers). Do you think we give our customers our source code to prove our tests are accurate? No, that would be idiotic. We do field trials. You can prove a breathalyzer is accurate by testing it against methods that are known to be reliable.

We're not talking about just the quality of the system. You also have to consider malicious intent.

Your "easter eggs" argument is just silly.

What's silly about it? You think they are somehow above that? I'm not one of the tinfoil hat crowd - but I do think a certain level of distrust of our government & its institutions is healthy. Transparency is the key to keeping everybody honest.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: mugs
That is idiotic. They should not have to reveal the source code, they should only have to prove that the test is accurate and reliable.

I demand the source code to Microsoft Word to determine whether or not their Word Count feature is accurate!

Don't be retarded. If an innacurate word count could land you in prision then you might have an argument. :roll:

If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.

Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.

So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?

Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propreiety code running on very important machines + corrupt government might not always mean libery and justice for all.

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

Also, a lawyer and some drunk are going to be able to test and understand the source code of a relatively complex machine? Complex at least to the lawyer and defendant is what I should say. And then the people that analyze the machine, those hired by MADD or those funded by defendant sponsored advocacy group, are going to be so unbiased when doing testing?

Independent means exactly that - it goes both ways. Independent of the government, of the manufacturer, no ties to various advocacy groups, etc.

Good luck finding one of those.

They exist - UL is one example, though their focus is product safety.

 

[josh0099]

Originally posted by: BigJ

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

It is not my problem to prove my innocence! Its the state problem to prove I am guilty and if they are trying to prove my guilt by using a breathalyzer, then I should see how it works. What if I blow just over the limit?? Is there any rounding in this source code that could make my numbrs go higher?

 

[everman]

I'd have to agree with the ruling on this one. Although I don't like the fact that some people will get away with drunk driving, I believe the tests used to convict people should be open to scrutiny.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: BigJ

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

It is not my problem to prove my innocence! Its the state problem to prove I am guilty and if they are trying to prove my guilt by using a breathalyzer, then I should see how it works. What if I blow just over the limit?? Is there any rounding in this source code that could make my numbrs go higher?

If I slapped some source code on your desk, would you be able to tell me what the program was doing?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: BigJ

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

It is not my problem to prove my innocence! Its the state problem to prove I am guilty and if they are trying to prove my guilt by using a breathalyzer, then I should see how it works. What if I blow just over the limit?? Is there any rounding in this source code that could make my numbrs go higher?

If I slapped some source code on your desk, would you be able to tell me what the program was doing?

If I slapped a ballistics report or DNA evidence on your desk would you be able to tell me what was going on?

That's what expert witnesses are for.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: BigJ

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

It is not my problem to prove my innocence! Its the state problem to prove I am guilty and if they are trying to prove my guilt by using a breathalyzer, then I should see how it works. What if I blow just over the limit?? Is there any rounding in this source code that could make my numbrs go higher?

If I slapped some source code on your desk, would you be able to tell me what the program was doing?

If I slapped a ballistics report or DNA evidence on your desk would you be able to tell me what was going on?

That's what expert witnesses are for.

And like you said before, we would need a completely independent organization for this. Not to mention the software is a "trade secret."

I would have no problem if an independent organization was created, or one was funded using tax payers money.

 

[Cooler]

As a programmer I agree that source code should be turned in.

1. A rounding errors are common in programming
2. Decimals are not accurate in they hold 1/3 ect you will get rounded down unlike fractions . Some numbers that cannot be expressed in a decimal cant be in done because it uses base 2

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: BigJ

And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.

It is not my problem to prove my innocence! Its the state problem to prove I am guilty and if they are trying to prove my guilt by using a breathalyzer, then I should see how it works. What if I blow just over the limit?? Is there any rounding in this source code that could make my numbrs go higher?

If I slapped some source code on your desk, would you be able to tell me what the program was doing?

If I slapped a ballistics report or DNA evidence on your desk would you be able to tell me what was going on?

That's what expert witnesses are for.

And like you said before, we would need a completely independent organization for this. Not to mention the software is a "trade secret."

I would have no problem if an independent organization was created, or one was funded using tax payers money.

To bad if it is a trade secret that doesn't excuse the state. A person has the right to face his accusers and in this case it is a black box.

As for independent organization, sorry but our justice system isn't based on the idea of independent testimony.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: alexeikgb
awsome...

you think people getting away with drunk driving because a company won't give up its source code is awesome?

I do. It's a poorly written law, this is the best way to get it changed.

what exactly is poorly written about it?

In Florida, state law currently considers a breath test valid if the machine is approved by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the person administering the test is qualified. The law also says that a defendant is entitled to "full information concerning the test taken" if such a request is made.

That part needs to be changed. Full information does not need to include the source code...perhaps something about proper calibration tests or something.

Either way, I think the DUI laws are a tad too strict...we're slowly working our way to having a glass of wine or 2 with dinner will get you a DUI charge.

The felon-ization of the general public is what Totalitarian governments do, when trying to come in "under the radar". The more citizens can be marginalized, the more oppresion can be visited upon them. "Legally".

 

[JulesMaximus]

Nice! I've often wondered how accurate those things actually are.

If they won't give up the source code I'd suspect they are hiding something.

 

[tjaisv]

what's your guys' state's legal BAC limit? in WA it's .08