I don't think an open source requirement should be there, and I don't think the defense has any right to the source code for the device either. The lack/availability of software does nothing to ensure a device is functioning as intended. A device is more than just the soft/firmware. What if any of the thousands of integrated circuit elements is failing? What if power levels are just squeaking by and logic operations being to fail? What if the device has been physically damaged, and part of the device doesn't function properly? There are countless variables that can make a device fail, and software is just one.
This is why we have analytical science, which has existed since long before firmware, software, or computers in general. Analytical devices are calibrated, and are supposed to be tested/validated regularly. The presence/absence of software means nothing in the end: whether you know the code or not, the device must be calibrated and then validated against a specification. If the the defense is not satisfied with the police's book keeping with regards to standards/certification, or if they wish to challenge the standards/cert itself, then by all means argue in court.
That was hardly my point. It is not the university's responsibility to get involved in this, and those who are involved can't get angry at the university for forwarding the letters. Those who did the actions should take responsibility and blame themselves, not the university for being a pushover.
The interests of the University of Washington are most certainly NOT to blindly support their students.
I don't buy the whole privacy facade. If you engage in illegal activity, regardless of what it is, then fess up to it when you're caught. Don't cry when the university refuses to hide your identity for your own careless acts.
Regardless of guilt or not, it's the court's responsibility to make the decision, not the university's. They shouldn't choose to hide the identity of the offenders if the means exists to track them.
Contrary to what most posts have indicated, the size isn't dictated by the fact that you're dealing with a mass spectrometer. Modern mass analyzers are quite capable of miniaturization.
Based off previous work by Cooks I'd hazard a guess that the spectrometer is likely a Quadrupole Mass Analyzer or a Quadrupole Ion Trap (the linked article doesn't specify). These types of instruments aren't inherently large since they do not have a magnet in them. Instead separation of the ions is made by a combination of DC and radio frequency AC electric fields.
The size of the instrument would be due to the fact that *several* high voltage power supplies are needed, a high vaccuum, and in all likelihood (high voltage) radio frequency generators. It's quite a feat that it could be done in such a small space to be honest. Though the mass analyzer is likely very small, it's the supporting electronics that would keep the instrument rather bulky for some time.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think an open source requirement should be there, and I don't think the defense has any right to the source code for the device either. The lack/availability of software does nothing to ensure a device is functioning as intended. A device is more than just the soft/firmware. What if any of the thousands of integrated circuit elements is failing? What if power levels are just squeaking by and logic operations being to fail? What if the device has been physically damaged, and part of the device doesn't function properly? There are countless variables that can make a device fail, and software is just one.
This is why we have analytical science, which has existed since long before firmware, software, or computers in general. Analytical devices are calibrated, and are supposed to be tested/validated regularly. The presence/absence of software means nothing in the end: whether you know the code or not, the device must be calibrated and then validated against a specification. If the the defense is not satisfied with the police's book keeping with regards to standards/certification, or if they wish to challenge the standards/cert itself, then by all means argue in court.
That was hardly my point. It is not the university's responsibility to get involved in this, and those who are involved can't get angry at the university for forwarding the letters. Those who did the actions should take responsibility and blame themselves, not the university for being a pushover.
The interests of the University of Washington are most certainly NOT to blindly support their students.
I don't buy the whole privacy facade. If you engage in illegal activity, regardless of what it is, then fess up to it when you're caught. Don't cry when the university refuses to hide your identity for your own careless acts.
Regardless of guilt or not, it's the court's responsibility to make the decision, not the university's. They shouldn't choose to hide the identity of the offenders if the means exists to track them.
Contrary to what most posts have indicated, the size isn't dictated by the fact that you're dealing with a mass spectrometer. Modern mass analyzers are quite capable of miniaturization.
Based off previous work by Cooks I'd hazard a guess that the spectrometer is likely a Quadrupole Mass Analyzer or a Quadrupole Ion Trap (the linked article doesn't specify). These types of instruments aren't inherently large since they do not have a magnet in them. Instead separation of the ions is made by a combination of DC and radio frequency AC electric fields.
The size of the instrument would be due to the fact that *several* high voltage power supplies are needed, a high vaccuum, and in all likelihood (high voltage) radio frequency generators. It's quite a feat that it could be done in such a small space to be honest. Though the mass analyzer is likely very small, it's the supporting electronics that would keep the instrument rather bulky for some time.