Slashdot Mirror
Breathalyzer Source Code Revealed
Nonillion writes "New Jersey attorney Evan M. Levow was finally able to get an order from the Supreme Court of New Jersey forcing the manufacturer of the popular Draeger AlcoTest 7110 to reveal the source code. Levow turned the code over to experts, Base One Technologies, to analyze. Initially, Base One found that, contrary to Draeger's protestations that the code was proprietary, the code consisted mostly of general algorithms: 'That is, the code is not really unique or proprietary.' In other words, the 'trade secrets' claim which manufacturers were hiding behind was completely without merit." Following up an earlier discussion here, the state of Minnesota has (without explanation) missed a deadline to turn over the code for a different breathalyzer.
The "code" probably digests an 8 bit unsigned char output of a A/D converter, a signal from the "alcohol detecterizer chip", the innards of which are probably proprietary. Then, if [quantized signal] is greater than X, then light the yellow light, if greater than [X+Y], light the red light and make a beep sound.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
You must first blow into this tube before your Slashdot post is accepted.
Processing... Processing... Done! (31 errors ignored)
Sorry, your blood alcohol is over the limit for Slashdot first-posting. Please try again later.
I didn't know SCO made breathalizers.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You mean, the creator of an intellectual work thinks it's more creative than it really is? That very rarely happens.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
if ( drunk ) {
goto JAIL;
}
Almost any firmware is just a collection of general algorithms. Calibration, self test, filters, look-up/calculations... I'm not subrised that there's nothing amazing in there. That they don't have any funky algorithms does not mean that the firmware is not a trade secret. It still takes significant engineering/test/validation effort to get to a working device.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I've been thinking about DUI laws in the US and how the laws are just the second coming of prohibition of liquor. Why else would they take two legal activities like drinking alcohol and driving, and make it criminal. Yes, I understand people get hurt by drivers under influence. But lets be real and compare it to teens getting into accidents, senior citizens getting into accidents, sleep deprived individuals getting into accidents, etc. Think about it... You don't see people being tested for reaction speeds when taking driver tests!! You don't see people being tested for intelligence when taking driver tests!! You don't see people being tested for decision making ability when taking driver tests!! If people had to pass these types of tests we wouldn't have so many traffics jams. Think about it, why have some states in the US that use whisky plates (plates for cars owned by individuals convicted of a DUI) run out and had to expand the letters used.
PS People who drink and get into accidents should be prosecuted as if they had reckless intent.
Sorry, your blood alcohol is under the limit for Slashdot first-posting. Please try again later.
There. Fixed it for you =]
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
The reason why no source code has been released in MN is that the manufacturer of the breathalyzer in that case, CMI, refuses to hand it over to anyone. They are asserting that it is a trade secret, and are resting on the fact that there is little a court in MN can do to force them, a Kentucky corporation, to hand it over.
I represent three clients in Phoenix, AZ, who have been trying to get the code from CMI for the same reasons, and have been met with nothing but frustration. Fortunately, a couple judges here have agreed with the defense that examination of the code is necessary to mount a defense, under due process grounds. We (myself and a number of other attorneys) have had dismissals in a total of about 11 cases in the City of Phoenix, all of which are being appealed. There are a few cases in superior court that will be appealed shortly as well. It's been a busy time in the world of DUI litigation.
Unfortunately, many judges here do not see the relevance. Further, they have enacted legislation to prevent the preclusion of breathalyzer results, despite the inability to examine the "schematics or source code" of the machines.
Believe me when I tell you - these machines are unreliable, and subject to many errors, most glaringly the result of RFI screwing up the results. I've read the findings of the independent lab on the NJ case, and it does raise many concerns. My biggest problem is that law enforcement can essentially hide behind a foreign corporation, and a jury never hears about many of the problems at hand.
My guess is that 99% of proprietary code contains a big trade secret: The secret of just how crappy the source code really is.
If they were expecting their code to be opened to the public, they would have taken the effort to fix up "spaghetticode.inc" which contains the single comment "//This works though i'm not sure why... clean up l8r!!!!".
The article states that the opposite is what occurs.y zer-software-finally-revealed/ - 10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times. For example, in the airflow measuring logic, if a flow measurement is above the prescribed maximum value, it is called an error, but this error must occur 32 consecutive times for the error to be handled and displayed. This means that the error could occur 31 times, then appear within range once, then appear 31 times, etc., and never be reported...
. So yes, they did look over the source code, they had a judge approved expert witness (aka someone who works with this stuff as their job)
from http://www.duiblog.com/2007/09/04/secret-breathal
1. The Alcotest Software Would Not Pass U.S. Industry Standards for Software Development and Testing
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings.
3. Results Limited to Small, Discrete Values: The A/D converters measuring the IR readings and the fuel cell readings can produce values between 0 and 4095.
4. Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is disabled
5. Implemented Design Lacks Positive Feedback: The software controls electrical lines, which switch devices on and off, such as an air pump, infrared source, etc. The design does not provide a monitoring sensory line (loop back) for the software to detect that the device state actually changed. This means that the software assumes the change in state is always correct, but it cannot verify the action.
6. Diagnostics Adjust/Substitute Data Readings: The diagnostic routines for the Analog to Digital (A/D) Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range, either too high or too low.
7. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substitute d: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations.
8. Range Limits Are Substituted for Incorrect Average Measurements: In a manner similar to the diagnostics, voltage values are read and averaged into a value.
9. Code Does Not Detect Data Variations
10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times
11. Timing Problems: The design of the code is to run in timed units of 8.192 milliseconds, by means of an interrupt signal to a handler, which then signals the main program control that it can continue to the next segment.
12. Defects In Three Out Of Five Lines Of Code: A universal tool in the open-source community, called Lint, was used to analyze the source code written in C. This program uncovers a range of problems from minor to serious problems that can halt or cripple the program operation.
Sorry if this is redundant, I didn't see it listed anywhere that I could tell up front. If you note that list is pretty serious. They picked a "top 5" type thing for the other link, but this one is pretty accurate. Note these guys were called in as expert witnesses and their information on their website shows they have extensive experience working with government. If these guys find flaws that is definitely pretty serious.
The unfortunate reality that the laws are trying to deal with, though, is that it is essentially impossible for law enforcement to spot all the drunks on the road, and deliver you home as you suggest (imagine the logistics of that: you could put all the police in this country on that duty full time!, and still not have enough cops).
Worse, it won't even be near to possible for them to indentify all of the sufficiently impaired so as to protect the rest of us from their idiocy.
What drunk driving laws do is create an incentive for everyone to voluntarily police themselves, and to act more responsibly. If you know you run a risk of a long incarceration just for drunk driving, you may not take my life into your hands by getting behind the wheel and driving the same roads as I do. If you (or most of these drunk idiots) know that the only penalty for getting caught is being taken home, then you'll be much more encouraged to just take your chances with my life, rather than deal with the inconvenience and cost of a taxi ride.
Drunk driving laws disencentivize behaviors on an individual basis that normally have unfortunate incentives on an individual basis, but have an extremely high average cost for the rest of society. This is also why no-sleepy-driving and no-cellphone-driving laws are a similarly good idea.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Have you looked carefully at your code to see what happens if you're not drunk? Personally, I'd like to see an exit(0); in that else section.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"7. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substituted: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations. No quality check or reasonableness test is done on this measurement..."
So, if I blow into the device as soon as it boots, I will always be tested negative??
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
Whenever there is a fine involved, it becomes no longer about social good, but about revenue raising.
In California, for example, police statistics have shown that crash rates did not go down when stronger DUI laws were enacted. Inherently, driving a vehicle is the dangerous activity.. drink driving just gives people an acceptable scapegoat.
How we know is more important than what we know.
That they don't have any funky algorithms does not mean that the firmware is not a trade secret.
Then what DOES make something a trade secret? The mere fact the software is compiled and/or programmed onto a chip? An EULA? An"anti-circumvention device" as defined by the DMCA? Seriously, where should we draw the line with "trade secrets" when it comes to protective legislation? The only "trade secret" revealed here is the fact that the manufacturer in question embedded alpha-quality software in a product released to production. That sort of a "trade secret" is generally considered willful negligence or fraud.
It still takes significant engineering/test/validation effort to get to a working device.
It is apparent that little to no such QA was done on this particular device, which to me sounds like a grave mistake considering the device is trusted to keep drunk drivers off the road. Keep in mind that this device is theoretically able to report just as many false negatives as false positives, do not only would it be possible for a sober driver to be falsely charged with a DUI (as this lawyer claims) it is also possible that countless drunk drivers falsely blew UNDER the limit and were allowed to continue on their way and put others in harms way. That could be considered criminal negligence on the part of those who engineered this device.
Just because it takes effort (in time and money) "to get a working device" even when there is nothing novel in its functionality does not mean that those putting forth the effort should be able to hide from scrutiny behind a "trade secret". The systems I work on are sometimes involve safety interlocks. My employer subjects their software division's development practices to audits from government agencies. Our clients often stipulate that they must have access to source code (though since we are a closed-source shop we never grant redistribution rights). Even if there are novel implementations or "trade secrets" there are legal instruments to accommodate for them and still remain accountable.
These "breathalyzer" devices used in the field are far from trade secrets--I remember plans for one in Radio Electronics years ago that was said to be quite reliable as a preliminary measurement device (didn't report a specific value, but had a "traffic-light-interface" of 3 LEDs). The "trade secret" excuse is flimsy and shameful. It is worse than the whole Diebold voting machine debacle because it can directly affect a person's safety and well-being.
Actually, I can tell you here in my (great drunk driving state of WI) that drinking while blasted does increase the probabilty of causing an accident.
.10 (the former legal limit) or .09 (now illegal) or .08 (borderline illegal) getting shafted LOOOONNGG before they are at the level of impairment of even talking on a cell phone, who are then subjected to what is basically a poorly built, poorly maintained piece of witchcraft known as a breathalyser. You might as well be attempting to test body thetans or use a polygraph. The science is that bad.
.08. The emphasis on this forces me to conclude the people pushing for the DUI laws stiffer than they already are have an alternative agenda that ends with "prohibition mark II".
And, I agree with you it is a criminal act that should be punished after a day in court.
HOWEVER,
We are not talking about the guys who are falling down smashed can't get the key in the door drunk.
We are talking about folks at
I see lots and lots of behavior and drivers on the road doing stuff WAY MORE DANGEROUS than someone getting home after happy hour toting a
Take 3 readings, say 1 2 3 for the sake of argument. The text says the first two are averaged, so:
(1+2)/2 = 1.5
Now this average is averaged with the third reading
(1.5+3)/2 = 2.25
or in full
((1 + 2)
Note the 3rd point is weighted twice that of the first 2 (i.e, its divided by 2, the first two points are divided by 4).
The real average should be:
(1+2+3) / 3 = 2
but the last point is being weighted more in the incorrect version so the average was given as 2.25
If the first point was weighted more you would expect the average to be less than 2. It's basically using a mean instead of an average. mean and average are the same thing. What this means is each reading could increase or decrease the score, as opposed to being consistant. If you take 3-4 tests each one could show you as "more drunk" when you might have started at
'alcohol related accidents' include events when a non-drunk crosses the double-yellow and crashes head-on into a drunk driver. I'm skeptical.
Blar.
I've never heard of Base One, and I never would have guessed from their home page http://www.base-one.com/ that they could do what they did, but that has to be one of the more impressive "code reviews" I've seen. The code review encompasses hardware, software, testing, architecture, design - in short, a rather thorough analysis. Seeing all of those skills come together for an embedded system project is pretty impressive. (Consider that, at Draeger, it appears that almost none of those skills were bought to bear...)
So kudos to Base One. Great work.
Crappy moderation again. I really wish those closer to God than the rest of us here in Slashdot would eliminate this personal points of view moderation tactics. The post is a good one and raises many questions which are valid questions. The post also has generated discussion which is exactly what slashdot is all about.
So moderators - stop attacking the messenger ok?
There is a TV program which I do not watch called "Canada's worst drivers".
This program apparently is oriented to rehabilitating some of the worst drivers in the country - people which clearly should not be allowed on the road.
Many years ago I was in an accident caused by one of these people. I watched with disbelief while this person drove literally more than a car length and finally stopped when she hit my car. At no time during this did she ever look forward. She had her head turned to the left looking for oncoming traffic. Meanwhile I was to her right. This would have been 1001, 1002, 1003. I was thinking - Lady... you need to look where you are driving!
It was in the news that a kid was killed while sitting on a bus bench. The lady in question was trying to fetch the plant that fell off the seat while she was turning a corner.
Now - what we do see in the media are deliberatly distorted statistics. If the victim in the accident has had something to drink they stat "Alcohol was involved". The victim could be sound asleep in the passenger seat and there are cases of him being charged. 1) He wasn't operating the vehical. 2) he wasn't even awake. 3) He never operated the vehical. 4) it was his buddy who was driving him home and the car quit and his buddy went to get help.
While there are accidents caused by people who should not be driving because they are intoxicated, the truth is this is totally blown out of porportion. At 0.08% many people are not intoxicated at all. Others are intoxicated at 0.02%. And the post I am responding to correctly points out that some people are so compromised that they should never get a driver's license in the first place.
Then... we have a faulty machine testing a flawed premise. The flawed premise is that alcohol at a certain level makes everyone a criminal.
What we really need to do is get bad drivers off the road. IMHO tail gating is a far worse offence than driving with a little too much slosh. Of course the cops in this city like tail gaters.
Without measures like this, police brethalyser selection is distorted by powerful confirmation biases.
Given an honest belief that suspects that are given the brethalyser test are intoxicated, the natural selection bias is towards machines that read positive more often. Even without a single thought of "we need a machine that convicts regardless of guilt", that's what they will tend to get.
Allowing the defense to face the actual witness (the brethalyser) so to speak provides the needed negative feedback to drive selection back towards accurate impartial instruments even if only to make DUI charges stick in court.
More to the point, it can drive machine selection towards those that meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. If trials are going to favor the readout on a brethalyser, the machine should (for example) always round towards a lower reading when measuring or computing. For example, if there is any noise in a reading, the lowers is beyond reasonable doubt, the average is vaguely justifiable (though it is probably closer to a preponderance than it is beyond reasonable doubt) and the highest is just plain trying to get convictions regardless of merit. Otherwise it has the potential to accuse someone of DUI (to the extent that a machine can accuse) even if in fact componant tolerances may mean the difference between just over the limit vs. just under. After all, the machine is not suceptable to a jury judging if it seems unsure or knew it was close to the edge based on testimony.
A surprising number of measurement devices meant for scientific and medical purposes (as well as law enforcement) do NOT correctly handle significant digits, error bars, or rounding. Many programmers do not understand the importance of different rounding rules, and even think that add .5 then truncate is always correct.
I think it's great the source code is getting out, and that we'll find out which devices are crappy and which are better.
But in the end, I don't think any of this matters. Drunk drivers are not prosecuted based on roadside breathalyzer tests. They are prosecuted based on tests done back at the police station using either a blood test or a much better lab-quality breathalyzer. These instruments are regularly tested in a way that makes it easy to convince a jury of the validity of the results. I've seen some of the corresponding tests on a roadside breathalyzer, and they convinced me not to trust the device.
So, it's good advice to decline the roadside tests.
Of course it really makes a difference what they mean when they say that successive readings are averaged in. For example, if they averaged the first 2, and stored the result, and then averaged the 3rd with 2 times the stored result, then this would be correct averaging. And if they took the average of the first 29 readings, and multiplied it by 29 and then averaged in the 30th one, all would be fine as well.
Sort of makes you want to SEE THE SOURCE CODE TO MOUNT A DEFENSE!
No, by driving a person is directly creating a dangerous situation to others, and without a good cause, that should not be happening.
Driving drunk just makes it slightly more dangerous.
People would have you believe that there was some massive drop off in the number of crashes on the road when DUI laws were enacted. There wasn't.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This is interesting.
The effect is that if your levels are dropping, it magnifies the drop, and if your levels are rising, it magnifies the rise. I'm not certain that this is a problem, as such. It might even be a benefit, on some level (especially if your levels are dropping.) Read on to see what I mean.
If you were to take ten readings, and they were rising from "1" to "10", then the correct average according to the report would be the sum of 1 to 10 divided by 10, or 5.5. That is, you would have ten readings and the average of them would be 5.5 even though your present reading was 10. This artificialy minimises your reading. Using the machine's algorithm, your "average" reading would be 9.001953.
If, on the other hand, your levels were descending from 10 to 1 in the ten readings, then the "correct" average is 5.5 still, but the machine would say your reading was 1.998047. Which is closer to your final reading.
OK, so what does this mean efffectively? Well, I guess the biggest concern is a residual alcohol effect, where you ahve alcohol in your mouth either from the beer you had between your knees, or from the mouthwash you quaffed at the last second. In this case, you would expect to spike the first reading. The machine's algorithm takes the spike into account, but minimizes its effect on your overall reading.
It should be noted that both algorithms have the same result for one or two blows. To maximise your results, you would need to insist on more than 4 blows, and only if the average reading was dropping each time.
10001001111001110110011000011101110
As much as I hate to agree with the gp, there is a valid point there, even if calling prosecution of drunk driving modern prohibition is absurd. The valid point is that there are plenty of things that make drivers unsafe and the tests to determine competency are arbitrary. Blood alcohol content doesn't measure competency, it just measures a risk factor, of which there are many including age, rest and mood which are ignored. On any given day, despite the fact that I don't ever drive drunk, there is some reason to question my competency. It might be my eyesight or my mood, or just that I'm giving half of my conscious attention to a programming problem, but the issue is that my focus is rarely completely solely on the task of driving my car. Certainly the level varies between those times when I'm in heavy traffic and the times when I'm alone on the road, but I think it is fair to question whether our society's emphasis on one risk factor is a realistic reflection of the true dangers of the road.
I'm sorry to say that I don't really have a better solution than the standard of hoping that the watchful eyes of law enforcement will pick up on those who endanger the lives of others in the road, at least not a socially acceptable one. If I'm getting to make free suggestions though, I recommend that persons who have exhibited stability, sanity and a tendency to be the safest drivers be issued a permit to shoot up to one bad driver a year. Should such an absurdity come to pass, I just hope that I'm one of the gun toting vigalities rather than one of the careless and dead. Come to think of it, I'd probably get a job where I could use public transportation or bicycle to work if I had to take the risk, so it would be good for the environment too. See, guns do make things better!
Posting from Texas, the only state where "he needed killin" might convince a jury.
Back in my day when we chiseled our bits into stone and sent them by mule train from village to village...
Like calling a taxi or getting a designated driver?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The rate of drivers involved in fatal accidents who had been drinking is over half during this hour
Well there's a surprise.
Did you know that the percentage of accidents near football stadiums involving football fans is shortly before and after football games is five times the percentage at other times? Quick, ban football! Being a football fan causes accidents!
So between 2 and 3 AM, twice as many accidents involve alcohol as during the rest of the day. Do you think MAYBE, just MAYBE, that might be because twice as many of the drivers on the road between 2 AM and 3 AM have been drinking?
That data is useless by itself. You have to not only know the percentage of drivers involved in accidents who have been drinking, but also know the percentage of all drivers on the road who have been drinking. If both numbers go up by the same amount, then drinking (on average) has no affect on accident rate. And if it goes up less, that means that the real culprits of accidents between 2 AM and 3 AM are probably the fact that it's dark and people are tired.
paintball
Actually, the breathalyzer is a painfully simple device, none of it is a trade secret. It's basically a pair of heated-wire anerometers in parallel, where both have a gas sample travelling at the same velocity, at the same temperature run through an anerometer.
A heated-wire anerometer works by running a current through a wire and measuring the voltage drop through the wire. The resistance will change with the speed and specific heat of the substance you're passing across the wire, because the substance will cool the heated wire based on a number of factors. A breathalyzer simply eliminates the speed measurement, and the other measurements, and what remains is the specific heat of the substance passing through the device. They simply run a reference gas in the opposite anerometer, and take the differential, and the alcohol will give a certain value.
Not a trade secret, unless something being common knowledge for all instrument engineers taught in the past 40 years is a trade secret.
It's been a long time.
My WITTY COMEBACK was killed by a drunk driver!
It's been a long time.
I am still licensed to be a medical technologist, I spent a lot of time working in hospital chemistry labs with computerized equipment, and that software fails all kinds of reasonable criteria for calibrating and operating any equipment.
It's pretty funny, actually. All this witch-hunting, when all you really need is to stick a few cops at the local bars right after last call.
All the MADD BS distracts from the actual dangerous drunks - you know, the ones with multiple DUIs for .15 and no license. Toss them in jail and be done with it.
Personally, I always walk to the bar, because I know full well I'm going to be utterly illegal to drive when I walk out.
So they can pop you for drunk in public, whee. Cops are out of control - going after safe targets that make money and ignoring the dangerous stuff that actually needs attention.
Makes me wonder why we don't just...you know....do them?
Because that's not the idea. The idea is to make it impossible to drink at all.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
There's plenty of studies showing that talking on the phone impairs drivers more than a 0.08 BAC. If we accept the premise that drivers should be criminally liable for driving while impaired that means one of two things: a) the laws for driving while phoning are too lenient or b) the legal limit of blood alcohol content is too low.
I pull imapired drivers over all the time. Yeah I'm frequently called a dickhead for charging a cellphone user with failure to control or assured clear distance, but so be it. "Ma'am, I stopped you because you appear to be impaired. You've put your entire car over the line at least seven times since I've been following you in the last mile and a half. Is everything OK?" "Oh yeah, just fine, I haven't been drinking or anything, I'm just talking on my phone." (More than half the time the driver is still on the phone when you approach the vehicle).
Do I think it sucks that a person pulled over for DUI faces significantly higher penalties even if they don't cause an accident versus someone simply not paying attention? Yeah, but I don't write the laws. Now, there is a difference between distracted driving and driving drunk. A distracted driver who is on the phone, putting on makeup, etc, can turn it off and become 100% focused on driving again. A drunk can't do this. They're impaired until the alcohol wears off. Thus the exposure time for a drunk driver is 100% of the time that they're behind the wheel. If traffic gets hairy or the weather turns bad, a distracted driver can hang up and drive. Am I implying that all distracted drivers do this when the situation requires more attention or am I saying that when traffic is light you're free to goof off? Absolutely not, but at least the ability to focus again is there while drunks don't have the option. My policy is if you're driving like you're impaired you probably are and I will make contact to determine what the issue is.
Personally I like non-DUI impaired driving cases. It's much easier to write someone a citation or a warning and send them on their way than to have to go through the rigmarole associated with a full-blown DUI arrest. In my mind both groups are equally dangerous on the road, but the former is much easier to deal with and get back to patrol. A drunk might take two hours from violation to calling 10-8 (back in service).
I'm sorry, but this is no joking matter! It's estimated that over 10,000 points of karma are lost a year to drink-/.-posting. Ordinary, everyday nerds like you have lost face with their peers. They feel inadequate as their karma drops from Excellent to Good in the face of all the other Excellent nerds. It's been known for some particularly disgraced nerds to quit /. and start posting regularly on digg. That's right, it's not so funny now, is it?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Yes, but how many karma points are *gained* by drunken slashdot posting? I'd say it's probably an order of magnitude greater than the points lost =]
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
In many business applications, good enough really is good enough. The rough edges can be fixed later, after the release date has been met. So long as the data is good enough for a business decision there is no problem.
Devices which are considered infallible in the legal system must be held to a higher standard. If they have a false positive, someone who is innocent of a crime will likely be convicted, particularly in something considered to be straightforward like a DUI trial.
DNA evidence is something for which the source (how the probability was reached, including methods) is open to professional review. Why should a lower standard be applied to other crimes? If a crime is worth prosecuting, it should be worth being certain that the accused actually did commit the crime, not just a best guess.
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
You can refuse any and ALL tests which may incriminate
you. Easy.
Besides, cheap ass whore cops will hold you for 30 minutes
to allow the alcohol you drank a hour ago , to reach limits that
WILL make you over the mark. They are cowards and criminals. Simple !
The GNNA should be involved in this discussion!!!
The crazy shit won't stick in court? Where the hell do you live? I have lived in Jersey, Georgia, Tennessee and a bunch of other places while in college and in the Air Force and law enforcement officers at all levels are the same; they are a bunch of sleazy lying bastards. They will charge you with all sorts of crazy shit because they know that a judge will side with them on at least half the charges no matter how crazy of a story they make up or how good of an attorney you get to represent you.
In the US justice system today the average Joe Blow on the street is fucked before the case even gets to the court. If a cop pulls you over, pray he got laid that morning so that he'll be in a better mood...then you MAY have a chance to get away with only a ticket for a minor infraction instead of having to prepare for a serious ass fucking by some guy named Bubba who wants to make you his "wife". If the feds are investigating you...well you're just plain fucked, those bastards know how to play the courts like a fine Stradivarius violin so you might as well buy a case of KY to take with you to prison. And that shit about a jury of your "peers"??? Ya, right...In your dreams!!! I'll never understand how a bunch of housewives, gardeners, mechanics and other blue collar workers could ever be considered "peers" in cases involving white collar "crime" or highly technical issues. Think about it...we have morons who can barely balance a checkbook sitting in judgment of corporate accountants. We have fools who can barely run their own lives sitting in judgment of CEOs. We have idiots who have no idea what the sine or cosine of an angle means, but you will find them sitting on juries deciding cases involving engineering failures. The eyes of these juries glaze over 10 seconds into expert testimony, and yet they are "peers" of the accused? If the prosecutor tells them 2 + 2 = 5, they'll just take his word for it and convict. Thats justice by a "jury of your peers." Peers my ass!
Justice in the US courts? That is a myth. Why should there be any justice when just about every penalty includes an opportunity for the government to seize money, property, or labor, i.e. community service, from the so-called "guilty" party? Hell some "crimes" permit seizure of property on just a suspicion, with no charges needing to be filed and with little or no recourse to get the seized property returned. After all who has tens of thousands of dollars to spend to go through the process to get seized property returned. No one I know.
Fucked...just plain fucked. That what you are once the "justice" system gets a hold of you.
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Considering this is shipping code in a device that doesn't exactly do automatic updates over a wireless network, I'm not sure when, exactly, you're anticipating that this testing" code will be replaced with the "real thing". You'll forgive me for thinking you're taking a fairly blase attitude towards the obviously complete lack of coding standards, formal oversight, or rigorous vetting in code that can quite literally destroy someone's entire life based on the output.
Playing around with temporary hacks is fun for a shareware app, not an officially-sanctioned law enforcement device that decides whether you were the victim of an accident or the perpetrator of a felony.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Considering this is shipping code in a device that doesn't exactly do automatic updates over a wireless network, I'm not sure when, exactly, you're anticipating that this testing" code will be replaced with the "real thing".
You could release the device with a non-optimal but completely functional piece of code due to time pressures in the development schedule. Maybe it's slow, or memory-hungry, but it still does the job just fine.
You mark the code as "temporary".
At a later date, you decide to release a new revision of the device - replacing the "temporary" code with a more optimal algorithm might provide cost savings by reducing the CPU spec needed, or the amount of RAM. Or maybe it just makes the device faster or extends the life of the batteries.
Given that the "temporary" code produced exactly the same results as the revised code, why is it important to this case? Is a drink-driver going to be let off because the manufacturer intended to release a later revision of the device which had a better battery life by running more efficient algorithms?
I'm not saying the manufacturer is in the right or in the wrong here, but it seems to me that you can't assume that code isn't production-quality just because there's a comment in there that states it's temporary.
http://blog.nexusuk.org