 |
Techdirt:Forget Voting Machines, Open The Code For Breathalyzers techdirt corporate intelligence techdirt wireless techdirt books techdirt reports older stuff submit story past polls about feedback Search Techdirt Try the Advanced Search . Forget Voting Machines, Open The Code For Breathalyzers Contributed by Carlo on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 10:07AM from the take-me-drunk-i'm-home dept. As electronic voting machines have become popular, there's been a big call for the companies that make them to release their code for public scrutiny . The most notorious vendor, Diebold, continues to resist , but the clamor for opening the code of other machines is growing, with breathalyzers the latest target. Laywers for 150 people charged with drunk driving in Florida are asking to see the source code of the breathalyzers that got their clients arrested . The software for the device in question was approved by the state in 1993, but has seen numerous changes since then, and an earlier ruling said defendants could look at manuals and schematics for the machines. The company that makes them, of course, says the 25-year-old-software is a trade secret and opposes the motion. << eBay's Skype Plan: Make Money From Free Calls | Reply | Threaded | Former Intermix CEO Ponies Up Spyware Fine >> Related Links release their code for public scrutiny continues to resist are asking to see the source code of the breathalyzers that got their clients arrested Related Articles More by Carlo Features Techdirt Corporate Intelligence Read about Techdirt Corporate Intelligence in CIO Magazine Like what you see on Techdirt? Get your own enterprise blog for your company, complete with all the news, summaries, and analysis you need from Techdirt's staff of expert analysts. Let us find, filter, summarize, and analyze the news for you. Sign up now! DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology by Beck on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 11:19AM Excellent reading in the DUI Blog: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/10/04#a251 If you read here you will see that the only reason the evidence from these machines is admissible in court is because there are laws that declare it admissible. Otherwise it would be very easy for a defense lawyer to prove to a jury that the test results are unreliable (assuming you are even allowed to have a jury). These machines are highly fallible, both in their mechanics, and in the calculations they perform to arrive at a blood alcohol value. [ Reply to this comment ] Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology by Anonymous Coward on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 11:27AM Just don't drink and drive and you won't need a lawyer to get access to the source code ya fucking drunkies! [ Reply to this comment ] Sure by VonSkippy on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 12:12PM Sure, let's protect the rights of those stupid drunk bastards that can't obey the simplist of rules (i.e. don't drink and drive). Not sure what's worse, the asshat drunks or the lawyers who bottom feed and defend them. [ Reply to this comment ] Re: Sure by Dave on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 12:23PM First they came for the drunks and I did not speak out because I was not a drunk. If you do not protect the rights of those you despise, those rights will not be there for you when you need them. [ Reply to this comment ] Re: Sure by arcfixer on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 12:48PM "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from his government". . Thomas Paine [ Reply to this comment ] To the judgemental asshats from previous comments. by nostranonymous on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 12:52PM Let's not forget that it's perfectly LEGAL to drive with a BAC of less than .08 Don't tell me to not drink and drive because I have EVERY right to do so to a point depending on how large of a person I am and how long I wait before driving. This is where the problem is. What if I decide to have 1 beer, I wait an hour, and drive home with a BAC of .05? Unfortunately, because of a faulty source code, the breathalizer says I have a BAC of .09. I am wrongfully accused of driving while excessively intoxicated and may even spend a night in jail because of a company that doesn't care since they make money off the punishment of others. Yes, it's dangerous to drive while intoxicated. But it's also dangerous to drive while you're sleepy or to drive when you're over the age of 65. And those people are not punished for endangering the lives of others... [ Reply to this comment ] Re: To the judgemental asshats from previous comme by Rikko on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 03:14PM You sure about that? In Canada there is the .08 "rule", but you can be charged with any alcohol level in your blood. That's left to the discretion of the officer. I await the day when there is no more manual driving.. Only then can these problems be solved. [ Reply to this comment ] Point, Set; by DGK12 on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 03:17PM You don't have to drink an alcoholic beverage to consume alcohol. Remember than some cough medications have alcohol in them. If for some reason you are given a Breathalyzer test and the device is not accurate, you could be falsely accused and get a DUI. Here's a point; 'Trade secret' is a secret which gives a product a competitive edge over competition. When information is called into court to dispute how a determination was made, that means that it MUST be brought to court. The Sixth Amendment assures the right to face ones accuser -in this case, the Breathalyzer made this judgement. I believe this also applies to questioning how the judgement was made, and if their is question as to its legitimacy, then 'trade secret' or no, they've got to do it. I believe that this is a legitimate claim, considering that the makers don't want to show the courts to see how they've programmed these devices. I doubt Corporate Espionage extends to a jury of randomly selected individuals. Remember Apple was found guilty of illegally using the courts to do their own investigation, trying to use 'trade secret' to hide from the truth. [ Reply to this comment ] Re: DUI Blog Explains Problems with the Technology by Colby on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 03:40PM Maybe the whole reason there is a discussion on this webpage is that non-drunk people(sober), are being falsely charged with drunk driving... Or, at the very least, people who are not comitting a crime are being prosecuted for one. It seems to me that the bigger problem is that there is no way for a person to prove his innocense should he be in the right and a cop made the error. To allow a device, which has obvious fallacies, should have never been considered in determing whether somone is charged $8,000+ for being a "drunk driver". Duh? This is along the same lines, in my mind, as the speed photos they have in our town. The pictures do not show nearly enough detail to identify a person conclusively. Innocent until proven guilty? Or innocent until someone else decides your not? Cops, judges, etc. are all actually REAL people. They are prone to all the same mistakes as anyone else. Why would we not have a system in place that accounted for this? The whole underlying system in our government - one which would ensure a government official had no more power than a anyone else, and could not be held above the law - was that of a "checks and balances." I am quite bitter on this subject as I have been harassed by cops for both good and bad reasons. e.g. "bad reason" - Driving home from work at 3:30am, to be pulled over because the cop wants to know what I'm up to at that hour. "good reason" - I ran a yellow light, that could have possibly endangered someone else. The cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket. It seems we are so powerless to do anything in our own defense anymore. It costs so much for a lawer, court fees, etc. That no person in the majority of Americans who make less than $40,000 per year, can afford a lawyer, missing work, etc. Only people who have money, have the ability to do anything, should they be innocent. Only people who have money, have the ability to do anything, should they be guilty. [ Reply to this comment ] Re: To the judgemental asshats from previous comme by Dave on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 05:15PM "In Canada there is the .08 "rule", but you can be charged with any alcohol level in your blood. That's left to the discretion of the officer." Technically, the law varies by state, but the federal funding leash has them pretty much uniform. It is, in fact, a specific fixed limit. .07% blood alcohol, and you're Joe Average, who just stopped to loosen up on the way home. .08%, and you're a child-killing, drunken SOB. Kinda makes you hope that watever you're being tested by is accurate, doesn't it? [ Reply to this comment ] Drink at home by Killed A Hobo on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 @ 06:28PM Just drink at home, if you feel the urge to drive, pop in Gran Turismo and wreak some havoc digitally... The only person who gets hurt that way is the guy who gets in your way when you throw the controller at the screen! [ Reply to this comment ] Re: Drink at home by Bill on Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 10:02AM That's right, no wine with dinner, and bars are no longer alloed to have parking lots. [ Reply to this comment ] Re: Drink at home by Anonymous Coward on Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 12:19PM Says who? Not the law, that's for sure. If the law did say that, the legal BAC limit would be 0.0 Go preach elsewhere. [ Reply to this comment ] [ home | corporate intelligence | contribute story | older articles | past polls | feedback | ] This site was built on the slashdot code.
|
|
DWI Lawyers in Nevada Clark, Nevada DUI/DWI Attorneys, Lawyers and Law Firms DUI/DWI Lawyers in Clark County, Nevada View all DUI/DWI Lawyers in Nevada Search for Premier DUI/DWI Attorneys Search by State: AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MH MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA PR RI SC SD TN TX VI UT VT VA WA WV WI WY -------- or --------- Search within: 25 Miles 50 Miles 125 Miles All From Zip Code: Additional Resources How a criminal lawyer can help DUI/DWI Law (Drunk Driving) FAQs State-by-state DMV Information State laws on Drunk Driving MADD Impaired Driving Facts Alcoholics Anonymous Drunk Driving State Statisics Home -> DUI/DWI -> Nevada -> Clark County Lawyers View All Clark County Lawyers Premier Results: Brent Percival, Law Offices Of Free Initial Consultation 630 S. Third Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Send Email | Click Here for Phone Number The Cochran Firm Criminal Defense Section Free Phone Consultation All Courts, All Crimes. Federal, State, Juvenile, Sex Crimes, Drugs, DUI, Domestic Violence, Embezzlement, etc. Available 24 Hours, for Free Consultation. Experienced Attorneys with Proven Results. Statewide, NV Send Email | Click Here for Phone Number | Visit WebSite Listings for Clark County DUI/DWI Lawyers: Las Vegas, NV Carlos Blumberg & Associates , Carlos Blumberg, 3450 E. Russell Road Carlos Blumberg & Associates , Carlos Blumberg, 930 S. 3rd Street, Suite 300 Chris Rasmussen Chartered , Chris Rasmussen, 330 S. Third Ste 1010 Douglas H. Clark P.C. , Douglas Clark, 2595 South Torrey Pines Drive James E. Smith Ltd. , James E. Smith, 8516 W. Lake Mead Blvd. #134 Kelly Slade, Ltd., Law Offices of , Kelly Slade, 601 S. 10th Street, Suite 102 Las Vegas Criminal Defense Lawyer , Theodore Williams, 515 South Third Street Law Offices Of Christopher R. Tilman , Chris Tilman, 1211 S. Maryland Pkwy Mills & Mills, LLC , Byron Mills, 502 So. Ninth St. Randolph Anderson, Esq. , Randolph Anderson, 515 E. Bonneville Ave. Salas & McQuigg , Richard Salas, 501 South Rancho | Suite I-62 Steve L. Sorenson, Law Offices of , Steve Sorenson, 701 North Green Valley Parkway Clark County Lawyers in related fields Military Law Lawyers Criminal Defense Lawyers Are you a Lawyer? List on AttorneyPages | Find Expert Witnesses | Find Legal Information / Advice | Legal Forms | About Us | Media AttorneyPages® is not a lawyer referral service and never receives any portion of any attorney's fees.We welcome feedback from visitors but are not responsible for any attorney's advice. Use of AttorneyPages.com is subject to our disclaimer, conditions of use and privacy policy.Use for marketing or solicitation is prohibited. AttorneyPages® , ExpertPages® and FreeAdvice® are trademarks and units of Advice Company ® 1997 to 2006 - All Rights Reserved - For feedback or listing information only, contact us by phone, Fax or Email: 2330 Marinship Way Suite 120, Sausalito, CA 94965, P.O. Box 1739 Sausalito, CA 94966 (415) 331-1212 - Fax (415) 331-4255
|
|
DWI), the average person New York - STOP-DWI: A Model of Excellence NEW YORK STOP-DWI: A Model of Excellence PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Innovative PROGRAM AREA(S) Alcohol and Other Drugs TYPE OF JURISDICTION State TARGETED POPULATION All Drivers JURISDICTION SIZE 17,990,455 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Alcohol related fatalities and injuries is a chronic problem that will affect one in three Americans in their lifetime. Nationwide, nearly 42,000 people die in motor vehicle crashes each year with 16,653 (40 percent) being alcohol related. This means that one person is killed every 33 minutes and one person is injured every two minutes from alcohol related crashes. Prior to establishment of the New York State Special Traffic Options Program for Driving While Intoxicated (STOP-DWI), the average person arrested for driving while intoxicated had a blood alcohol concentration level of .19, almost twice the legal limit. Yet their chances of being arrested were estimated to be one in two thousand. Most drunk drivers had their charges reduced to non-alcohol related charges, the average fine was $11; all while alcohol related fatalities were at a high 44.14 percent. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES New York States STOP-DWI Program was developed in 1980 in an effort to decrease alcohol related fatalities and injuries in the state. The objective was to ensure that legislation would be passed to lay the foundation for the development of effective, self-funding, local programs. STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES In 1981, the New York State Legislature passed laws that set into motion a series of reforms that would permanently transform the way the drinking driver is viewed and would establish a national model for excellence. The resulting framework for this model had four strategies: Establishing comprehensive, self-sustaining local programs This legislation allowed each county to establish a STOP-DWI program, develop a comprehensive plan and appoint a STOP-DWI coordinator. In turn, counties received all fines collected for alcohol and other drug-related traffic offenses within their jurisdictions. Counties were given a large degree of latitude to develop programs that meet their specific local needs. Mandatory minimum fines The new law mandated that judges impose substantial minimum fines. It increased penalties from a maximum of $50 for the first time conviction for Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) to a minimum mandatory fine of $250. A conviction for DWI was raised to a minimum fine of $300 and a maximum fine of $500. Mandatory and immediate license loss for chemical test refusals Individuals would now be subject to an administrative hearing for license revocation and a $100 civil fine if they refused to submit to a lawfully requested chemical test to determine blood alcohol content. The fine has since been raised to $300. Restrictions on plea bargaining restrictions With this change, individuals charged with driving while intoxicated would not be allowed to plead guilty to a non-alcohol related offense except under very narrow evidentiary circumstances. RESULTS The local option approach for DWI enforcement has proven to be very effective. It has not only dramatically reduced alcohol related fatalities and injuries, but has also allowed counties to be extremely creative in developing programs and fostering cooperation between localities. All counties in New York State have a STOP-DWI Program. The successes of the programs are notable: Alcohol related crashes decreased from 16,607 (1981) to 10,167 (2000). Alcohol related fatalities decreased from 1,107 (1981) to 334 (2000). Alcohol related injuries decreased from 21,633 (1981) to 9,251 (2000). The percent of alcohol related crash fatalities decreased from 44.1 percent (1981) to 23.13 percent (2000). State collected fines went from less than $500,000 annually to an average of $22 million annually. Not a penny of taxpayers money has been spent since the inception of the program. Fine money, which currently averages $22M per year is retained by the counties to operate the program. FUNDING Zero (see Results section) CONTACT Denise Cashmere, Chair NYS STOP-DWI Coordinator's Assn. Schenectady Co. STOP-DWI 107 Nott Ter., Ste. 303 Schenectady, NY 12308 (518) 386-2225 SPRING 2002
|
|
Breathalyzers and Open Source -- [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source interesting-people message [ Date Prev ] | [ Thread Prev ] | [ Thread Next ] | [ Date Next ]--[ Date Index ] | [ Thread Index ] | [ Elist Home ] Subject : [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source From : David Farber <dave@farber.net> To : Ip Ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Date : Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:04:03 -0400 Begin forwarded message: From: Kris Gabor <kgabor@aol.com>Date: October 28, 2005 6:03:53 PM EDTTo: dave@farber.netSubject: Re: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source A district court judge here in Fairfax County (Northern Virginia) is challenging a similar notion by dismissing a number of DWI cases where above-the-limit breathalyzer results are setting up a presumption of guilt -- not all that different from the presumption of guilt that comes from refusing a breathalyzer. Good article about it in yesterday's Washington Post: Maverick N.Va. Judge Tosses Out DWI Cases That Presume Guilt By Tom JackmanWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, October 27, 2005; Page A01 A Fairfax County judge who believes Virginia's drunken driving laws are unconstitutional has begun dismissing cases, including five DWI cases in a week, and has threatened to throw a veteran prosecutor in jail for arguing with him. Judge Ian M. O'Flaherty made it known in July that he felt Virginia's DWI law unfairly deprived defendants of the presumption of innocence if breath tests showed that they had a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher, levels at which people are presumed to be intoxicated. <snip> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/ AR2005102602 572.html -- Kris On 10/28/05 17:49, "David Farber" <dave@farber.net> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Ed Biebel <edward@biebel.net>Date: October 28, 2005 10:22:45 AM EDTTo: dave@farber.netSubject: RE: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source In addition, I believe that in both Pennsylvania and New Jerseyagreeing tosubmit to a breathalyzer or blood test is a condition of having adriver'slicense. Refusing to take the test can result in an immediatesuspension ofyour driver's license (6 months to a year I believe). A friend of mine that is attorney recommended not refusing the tests(especially for a first offense) because he said that at trial a goodattorney would have leeway to present mitigating issues, challenge theaccuracy of the tests, plea to a lesser charge for a lightersentence, etc.However the refusal of the test was cut and dry and essentiallyresulted ina mandatory punishment. While IANAL and I'm not advocating people drink and drive (or avoidpunishment if they do), I thought this was an interesting legalperspectiveworth mentioning. -Ed -----Original Message-----From: David Farber [ mailto:dave@farber.net ]Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:14 PMTo: Ip IpSubject: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source Begin forwarded message: From: Bradley Roberts <br2@u.washington.edu>Date: October 25, 2005 4:04:40 PM EDTTo: David Farber <dave@farber.net>Cc: "Andrew D. Swart" <andrew@swart.com>Subject: Re: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source A friend got pulled over in front of me for some minor infraction(into a bike lane too early for a right turn, if I remembercorrectly). I knew he had come from a bar and had probably had atleast one drink. They started in on the normal dui tests (speech,eye, coordination, etc) in front of me. I had enough time beforethis to tell him not to submit to a breathalyzer as they'reinaccurate - he said that he was probably above the limit, so I toldhim that he could expect that they'd figure this out and he'd betaken to the police station for a blood test if he refused abreathalyzer. By refusing to submit to the breathalyzer, under CA law (or at leastin San Luis Obispo), the officers have the option to place the personunder arrest and take them in for more thorough evaluation. They didthis - unfortunately for my friend, he didn't take well to beinghandcuffed and started to argue/resist. Probably would have beentreated better had he not. Ultimately his blood was tested and wasfound above the legal limit. He made a bad choice and is stillpaying the consequences but no one was hurt. However, it should be clear that if you refuse to take a breathalyzertest, you MAY be arrested. Whether or not you've ever had a drop ofalcohol in your life. Refusing the test is within your rights, butan officers suspicion will quickly place you in shackles and you'llbe subjected to the more reliable (and repeatable) tests. Begin forwarded message: From: "Andrew D. Swart" <andrew@swart.com>Date: October 24, 2005 4:30:21 PM EDTTo: dave@farber.net, 'Ip Ip' <ip@v2.listbox.com>Subject: RE: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open SourceReply-To: andrew@swart.com ...I mention all these factors because they are common in manymeasurement instruments......No amount of viewing the code will tell you that. A local attorney (Santa Barbara) regularly takes out full page ads in local papers seeking DUI clients, but also advising people of their rights during a suspected DUI stop. One of his biggest pieces of advice: refuse under all circumstances an invitation to take a breathalyzer test. He points out that the portable technology is flawed and the results can't be verified independently (only a single sample). Instead, do no resist, if law enforcement insists, taking a blood or urine test. More reliable and samples remain for independent testing at later stage. Warning: refusing a breathalyzer test (but not the other tests) in California is reportedly within our rights; this may not be the case in all other states. Andrew Swart -------------------------------------You are subscribed as br2@u.washington.eduTo manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ -------------------------------------You are subscribed as interesting-people@lists.elistx.comTo manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ [ Date Prev ] | [ Thread Prev ] | [ Thread Next ] | [ Date Next ]--[ Date Index ] | [ Thread Index ] | [ Elist Home ] Search: this month this year this elist Match: all any boolean Sort by: score date reverse score reverse date Words: | Help Powered by eList eXpress LLC
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
