But, I fail to see how this iPhone "bug" becomes an issue - there are many other ways to wake up or be reminded and if you rely on your iPhone for everything, you have a single point of failure.
So how many alarm clocks do you have on your bedside table? I have only ever had two alarm clocks that have ever been unreliable: a clock radio that would randomly turn itself on for a minute at a time throughout the night, and my iPhone which failed to wake me up this morning. All the other problems have been due to blackouts, which is why I only get clocks with battery backups.
I'm mean seriously, the age of digital watches being a pretty neat idea is over. Even the cheapest Chinese clocks can reliably sound an alarm at a specified time of the day. How could the iPhone get it so wrong?
Wow. Is this mentioned in memo that was released as part of a court case? Is there something about it on Wikileaks? Or are you just making up sh!t because you just don't like Microsoft?
I don't have any stats in front of me, but I think that PC gaming might be increasing because it is getting easier to get titles due to services like Steam. We might hate the DRM, but the store is great and very convenient. However, you are right that stupid moves by the likes of Ubisoft do make things harder.
The big problem is that this will eventually extend to gaming consoles. Already we see the other bane of PC gaming being copied by consoles - that of buggy initial releases requiring large patches. I can see larger titles eventually coming from the various virtual marketplaces. Ultimately, I predict future consoles will be released without any optical drive. Always on Internet connection requirements won't be too far behind that.
I boycotted Steam for a very long time until I got drunk late one night and bid on the Orange Box on eBay. It sat around for many months until I finally got an ADSL line at home to use it. Since then I have purchased quite a few things from the service, but since I don't ever really own the titles, I only pay 2nd hand game prices for anything. Nothing over $5. My average price is $3.74 right now. This includes buying multi-game packs cheap and dividing the purchase price between each game.
If Steam has something cheaper than gog.com then I still buy it at gog.
Where Steam has proven to be a problem was when I was without Internet access for about a month while I changed my line and got a new provider. While you can still play games offline, I couldn't set it to be offline by default. I took about 4 minutes to timeout looking for the server. Unfortunately it was flagged to download an update of the Steam client (which it couldn't do) so I think that was what caused the problem.
They said that the AC1 lagged due to it's DRM, not because it ways 'aways on'.
Then how is disconnecting the Internet proof of DRM causing a slow down? If it isn't always on (and AC1 wasn't) then the internet status wouldn't make a difference. It is more likely that there was some other background task going on. Maybe even some virus.
I can't say for sure that Ubisoft's DRM doesn't cause slowdowns in AC2 because while I played #1 I avoid #2 for this reason.
The United States Supreme Court has a different opinion of this. In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, it found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. The law makers have obviously put some thought into this before implementing their legislation.
Which innocent people will get caught up in this? How will having a judge on hand to compel a blood test cause any innocent person to get falsely accused?
Absolutely not. That alone would be enough to get the case tossed. Think for two seconds.
Isn't it amazing how I could write all those paragraphs on this subject without actually thinking about it for two seconds.
Obviously under normal circumstances there would be no need for a judge to talk to the driver. As I have mentioned previously, a DUI is a controlled environment for the police so if anything was going to be out of the ordinary that would require any extra judicial review then it would be something that was instigated by the driver. Anyone has the right to talk to a judge without a lawyer present if they want. It is not as if it could penalise them because the default outcome would be that a warrant would be issued. As long as any correspondance between the driver and judge was not used in evidence in any court case, then I don't see that it would result in the case being thrown out.
And if I am wrong, then who cares. It doesn't change the main argument of my post. I don't have to know if a judge can talk to one of the drivers because despite your belittling of the profession, the judges themselves will know if it allowed. And if they don't know the law on the subject, they can always hop onto the internet and email you for all the answers.
Actually, the first story of 2011 was "FBI Raids Texas ISP For Anonymous DDoS Info". The iPad story was about 19 hours after 2011 started on Earth. Happy new year.
They've evidently given up even pretending to weigh the issues before forceably extracting bodily fluids for testing.
What issues? I have still yet to hear anyone say what a judge in the field will overlook? What could they get wrong that they would not also get wrong if they were sitting in a room on the other side of town? If you refuse to use the breathalyzer, what legal reason would make a judge let you off without any further testing?
You might not be inspired to have much confidence in the scenario of a judge working alongside the police, but it seems to me that they are directly overseeing the activities of the police. I think that it is more likely that the police would be kept in line rather than the judge become corrupt.
There's way more than one reversal over the course of a career.
So "most judges have at least one judgment reversed" actually means that all judges have many more than one judgement reversed? Do you know how many laws there are, and how complicated they are with lots of clauses and subclauses. Do you know how hard it is to match all of the laws, clauses and subclauses to a particular case? Nobody can possibly know them all. Even if they did, there would still be different interpretations of them.
It is grossly unfair to malign the entire profession because they don't get things 100.00% right. Fortunately, the legal system assumes that judges won't get everything right, which is why we have different levels of courts to check up on each other. Anyway, issuing a warrant is not the same as convicting someone. They still have to go through that process in a court if they are found to be drunk driving.
A judge who is "on call" expressly for this sort of service is not independent.
Why not? Why would they suddenly forget how to be a judge? The excitement of being outside their courtroom? The confusion of being at eye height to the police rather than towering above them in a little box?
If judges can handle going to a hospital to hear evidence from someone who is to ill to move, then I am sure that they can handle issuing a warrant on a roadside.
And I have still yet to hear what decision that they would make differently just because they are onsite. What could the police do at a DUI checkpoint that would mean a judge would NOT sign a warrant? At least when the judge is right there, he/she would not have to rely on just the police's description of what happened before issuing a warrant (as has to happen when they are in court). If there was any question then the judge could go talk to the person directly.
Actually, the statistic to which I referred was that the number of fatal traffic accidents was the same as it was during the 80's. To be fair, my link showed that the number of deaths was at the lowest level since the 50s. This is not the same as the number of accidents being down that far.
Your linked site did show something interesting. It is only in the last two years that fatality rate has been dramatically reduced from a 14 year plateau (as far back as the site shows). Whatever has changed in the last couple of years has had a major effect on the road toll.
Given law enforcement today, I'd say it's a coin toss.
I have no doubt that individual cops are out there looking for a power fix, but I can't see an organised DUI checkpoint being setup for that reason. The decision to do it would probably be made by someone who didn't have to stand out in the weather performing the breathalyzer checks, so they wouldn't get the feedback of the power trip.
They have to insist on a blood test because they can't just let you go and it's impossible to compel someone to breath properly into the breathalyser (and , in fact, some people with lung disease are not actually capable).
Quite right. I wonder what would happen if you were a 7th Day Adventist with lung disease who couldn't use a breathalyzer for medical reasons and wouldn't give a blood sample for religious reasons (I hope I picked an appropriate religion).
If they were REALLY that concerned about safety, wouldn't they just patrol heavily and pull over people who aren't driving well? If they're actually a danger, it should be apparent.
Unfortunately you can be a danger without swerving all over the road. The first problem that you get when drunk is a reduced reaction time. Long before you start seriously slurring your words, you already become a dangerous driver. What makes it all the more dangerous is that you will think that you are in complete control, and will still drive in the usual manner.
You are going way off topic here. Who cares if you say that DUI may refer to something other than alcohol, or that you can be ticketed for speeding? This story is all about compelling people to have their alcohol level measured to get the drunks off the road. You might claim that the police don't need any breathalyzer or blood test evidence to arrest you for DUI, but if that is true why are they going to these lengths to ensure that they do get the evidence? And if you are wrongly arrested for DUI, surely it is in your best interest to have the evidence to prove in court that you were not under the influence.
It is not always illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol
Correct. You need to be over a certain alcohol level. If only they had a way to measure this!
Additionally, roughly 75% of fatal accidents do not involve alcohol.
So 25% of fatal accidents do involve alcohol. It seems reasonable to want to eliminate that portion of the fatalities. Of the remaining 75%, how many of those are caused by excessive speed? That is why they give out speeding tickets to stop people from doing that. And how many accidents are caused by people being distracted by texting on their phones? Well that is why many places around the world are outlawing that practice to. They are not doing it to just annoy the public. They are doing it to save lives.
While you are wrong about what the police are supposed to do (well, you are correct in spirit but that isn't actually the mission of the police), how do you explain their utter failure in changing the number of fatal traffic accidents since the 80's despite the hugely increased focus on alcohol use? Finally, you might be tempted to ask me for citations. Luckily, google is your friend.
I tried google as you suggested. One of the first matches indicates that your statistic is wrong.
A cop's job is to enforce law, not save laws, not prevent crime. If a cop's actions are being easily overturned, then they really aren't enforcing the law, so either they fabricate evidence, or make it virtually impossible to defend.
Drink driving is against the law. The cops ARE doing their job to enforce that law.
What makes you think that any cop's action's are being easily overturned? How is that relevant to this topic?
Who is claiming that anybody is fabricating evidence? This is about preventing people from being able to commit a crime and get away with it. They do this by gathering evidence, not fabricating it.
Using this gathered evidence, they are making it virtually impossible to defend. Is that a problem? Do you want to leave loopholes so that people can commit break the law with impunity?
Oops. I misread the original message that this referred to the keeping of medical records. The HIPAA does cover the interaction with law enforcement, so I don't see that there should be an automatic assumption that blood tests for drink driving would run afoul of that act.
And you're expecting a road-side judge to be well versed in the law?
Look at how many decisions get reversed on appeal.
But how many don't get reversed on appeal? It seems like judges get it right way more than they get it wrong. Your own statistic shows that. One judgement reversal for an entire career?? Shocking!!!
What subtle legal arguments would there be that could mean a warrant should not have been issued at a DUI checkpoint? Why would a judge who has been asked to perform this service not have ensured that they knew the relevant law regarding DUI stops? Would a random slashdot poster know better than someone who has spent many years learning the law?
They don't WANT to provide you with a defense and they don't care if you're innocent. The fact is they have a number from a magic black box that grants them license to treat you as a lesser being for a bit and that's the way they like it.
Right... Which seems more likely? That they go to all this trouble and expense to give themselves a power trip, or that they do it to save lives? If they didn't care about whether you were innocent, why would they want to insist on giving you a blood test? Surely they would just get the judge to compel you to use the breathalyzer and use that to convict you.
It is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, but some still do it anyway and that results in people dying. Trying to prevent the loss of life is exactly what the police are supposed to do.
Normally, the only "proof" needed is a printout from the breathalyzer machine.
Thanks for that. It seems that the changes being mooted in Tampa will be an improvement if it results in the more accurate and repeatable blood tests then.
The "what's next?" is an argument when the example is not a non sequitur like take for example... yours. Having a judge on site to "streamline" the process like this is dangerous because it lessens the boundary between the executive and the judicial powers. Basically overriding the protection of your rights gets boiled down to "Ok you wont let me do this," *turns around, gets a stamp, turns back* "now you have to."
The point of having warrants is to ensure that everything is legal. You can't expect the police to be fully versed in the law (well, you can expect it, but it doesn't happen). Having a judge onsite means you have an expert there to sign off on the legality of the situation. Considering that the situation is very managed in the case of a DUI checkpoint, what would change between one driver and another that would mean a judge should refuse one of those warrants?
I just don't see how having an expert present would make things worse than if he/she was sitting in a courtroom. Considering that a timely resolution is required to ensure the tests can be done to correctly determine whether a crime has been committed, it seems reasonable to have both a mobile lab to administer the blood tests and a mobile court to administer the legal checks.
Unless the previous person blew high enough that there's residual alcohol inside the machine.
You have to blow into those breathalyzers for a good few seconds. That is more than enough to get rid of any residual alcohol.
If they want to stop everybody at random checkpoints like the gestapo, fine, but don't make people who seem sober take any stupid breath tests or blood tests.
And how long would it take to determine if people seemed sober. It is amazing how many people here are offended by the idea of having to stop at a DUI checkpoint, but how much worse would it be if you had to end up waiting in line for half an hour while the police perform sobriety tests on everyone just to determine which of them should blow into a breathalyzer.
Oh, and you can bet a blood test on the side of the road won't meet HIPAA requirements for electronic medical records
Taking blood is not rocket science. It is quite easy to setup a truck with the appropriate facilities for handling blood samples.
You mean the fact that it's an error prone test, that can draw false positives due to diabetes, low-carb dieting, and various non-intoxicated metabolic states, along with the fact that once the test is completed, the results can't easily be challenged and shown to be false, since there is no blood sample with which to do further testing.
Don't they follow up a positive breath test with a blood test? That is how it works in my country. Even if it is not the standard procedure, couldn't you insist on a blood test (since this story shows that they have the facilities to do this).
Slashdot Mirror
But, I fail to see how this iPhone "bug" becomes an issue - there are many other ways to wake up or be reminded and if you rely on your iPhone for everything, you have a single point of failure.
So how many alarm clocks do you have on your bedside table? I have only ever had two alarm clocks that have ever been unreliable: a clock radio that would randomly turn itself on for a minute at a time throughout the night, and my iPhone which failed to wake me up this morning. All the other problems have been due to blackouts, which is why I only get clocks with battery backups.
I'm mean seriously, the age of digital watches being a pretty neat idea is over. Even the cheapest Chinese clocks can reliably sound an alarm at a specified time of the day. How could the iPhone get it so wrong?
Wow. Is this mentioned in memo that was released as part of a court case? Is there something about it on Wikileaks? Or are you just making up sh!t because you just don't like Microsoft?
As I said, who gives a damn. You have chosen to focus on an irrelevant part of the post so you don't have to address the main point.
No doubt tons of innocent people will be searched without their consent, for one.
That is a far cry from innocents being convicted though.
And since the breathalyzer test has known problems, more innocents will be caught up.
Well it is a good thing that in this story you have the option of a blood test instead of a breathalyzer.
I don't have any stats in front of me, but I think that PC gaming might be increasing because it is getting easier to get titles due to services like Steam. We might hate the DRM, but the store is great and very convenient. However, you are right that stupid moves by the likes of Ubisoft do make things harder.
The big problem is that this will eventually extend to gaming consoles. Already we see the other bane of PC gaming being copied by consoles - that of buggy initial releases requiring large patches. I can see larger titles eventually coming from the various virtual marketplaces. Ultimately, I predict future consoles will be released without any optical drive. Always on Internet connection requirements won't be too far behind that.
I boycotted Steam for a very long time until I got drunk late one night and bid on the Orange Box on eBay. It sat around for many months until I finally got an ADSL line at home to use it. Since then I have purchased quite a few things from the service, but since I don't ever really own the titles, I only pay 2nd hand game prices for anything. Nothing over $5. My average price is $3.74 right now. This includes buying multi-game packs cheap and dividing the purchase price between each game.
If Steam has something cheaper than gog.com then I still buy it at gog.
Where Steam has proven to be a problem was when I was without Internet access for about a month while I changed my line and got a new provider. While you can still play games offline, I couldn't set it to be offline by default. I took about 4 minutes to timeout looking for the server. Unfortunately it was flagged to download an update of the Steam client (which it couldn't do) so I think that was what caused the problem.
They said that the AC1 lagged due to it's DRM, not because it ways 'aways on'.
Then how is disconnecting the Internet proof of DRM causing a slow down? If it isn't always on (and AC1 wasn't) then the internet status wouldn't make a difference. It is more likely that there was some other background task going on. Maybe even some virus.
I can't say for sure that Ubisoft's DRM doesn't cause slowdowns in AC2 because while I played #1 I avoid #2 for this reason.
The lack of probable cause.
The United States Supreme Court has a different opinion of this. In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, it found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. The law makers have obviously put some thought into this before implementing their legislation.
Which innocent people will get caught up in this? How will having a judge on hand to compel a blood test cause any innocent person to get falsely accused?
Absolutely not. That alone would be enough to get the case tossed. Think for two seconds.
Isn't it amazing how I could write all those paragraphs on this subject without actually thinking about it for two seconds.
Obviously under normal circumstances there would be no need for a judge to talk to the driver. As I have mentioned previously, a DUI is a controlled environment for the police so if anything was going to be out of the ordinary that would require any extra judicial review then it would be something that was instigated by the driver. Anyone has the right to talk to a judge without a lawyer present if they want. It is not as if it could penalise them because the default outcome would be that a warrant would be issued. As long as any correspondance between the driver and judge was not used in evidence in any court case, then I don't see that it would result in the case being thrown out.
And if I am wrong, then who cares. It doesn't change the main argument of my post. I don't have to know if a judge can talk to one of the drivers because despite your belittling of the profession, the judges themselves will know if it allowed. And if they don't know the law on the subject, they can always hop onto the internet and email you for all the answers.
Actually, the first story of 2011 was "FBI Raids Texas ISP For Anonymous DDoS Info". The iPad story was about 19 hours after 2011 started on Earth. Happy new year.
They've evidently given up even pretending to weigh the issues before forceably extracting bodily fluids for testing.
What issues? I have still yet to hear anyone say what a judge in the field will overlook? What could they get wrong that they would not also get wrong if they were sitting in a room on the other side of town? If you refuse to use the breathalyzer, what legal reason would make a judge let you off without any further testing?
You might not be inspired to have much confidence in the scenario of a judge working alongside the police, but it seems to me that they are directly overseeing the activities of the police. I think that it is more likely that the police would be kept in line rather than the judge become corrupt.
There's way more than one reversal over the course of a career.
So "most judges have at least one judgment reversed" actually means that all judges have many more than one judgement reversed? Do you know how many laws there are, and how complicated they are with lots of clauses and subclauses. Do you know how hard it is to match all of the laws, clauses and subclauses to a particular case? Nobody can possibly know them all. Even if they did, there would still be different interpretations of them.
It is grossly unfair to malign the entire profession because they don't get things 100.00% right. Fortunately, the legal system assumes that judges won't get everything right, which is why we have different levels of courts to check up on each other. Anyway, issuing a warrant is not the same as convicting someone. They still have to go through that process in a court if they are found to be drunk driving.
A judge who is "on call" expressly for this sort of service is not independent.
Why not? Why would they suddenly forget how to be a judge? The excitement of being outside their courtroom? The confusion of being at eye height to the police rather than towering above them in a little box?
If judges can handle going to a hospital to hear evidence from someone who is to ill to move, then I am sure that they can handle issuing a warrant on a roadside.
And I have still yet to hear what decision that they would make differently just because they are onsite. What could the police do at a DUI checkpoint that would mean a judge would NOT sign a warrant? At least when the judge is right there, he/she would not have to rely on just the police's description of what happened before issuing a warrant (as has to happen when they are in court). If there was any question then the judge could go talk to the person directly.
Actually, the statistic to which I referred was that the number of fatal traffic accidents was the same as it was during the 80's. To be fair, my link showed that the number of deaths was at the lowest level since the 50s. This is not the same as the number of accidents being down that far.
Your linked site did show something interesting. It is only in the last two years that fatality rate has been dramatically reduced from a 14 year plateau (as far back as the site shows). Whatever has changed in the last couple of years has had a major effect on the road toll.
Given law enforcement today, I'd say it's a coin toss.
I have no doubt that individual cops are out there looking for a power fix, but I can't see an organised DUI checkpoint being setup for that reason. The decision to do it would probably be made by someone who didn't have to stand out in the weather performing the breathalyzer checks, so they wouldn't get the feedback of the power trip.
They have to insist on a blood test because they can't just let you go and it's impossible to compel someone to breath properly into the breathalyser (and , in fact, some people with lung disease are not actually capable).
Quite right. I wonder what would happen if you were a 7th Day Adventist with lung disease who couldn't use a breathalyzer for medical reasons and wouldn't give a blood sample for religious reasons (I hope I picked an appropriate religion).
If they were REALLY that concerned about safety, wouldn't they just patrol heavily and pull over people who aren't driving well? If they're actually a danger, it should be apparent.
Unfortunately you can be a danger without swerving all over the road. The first problem that you get when drunk is a reduced reaction time. Long before you start seriously slurring your words, you already become a dangerous driver. What makes it all the more dangerous is that you will think that you are in complete control, and will still drive in the usual manner.
You might not really understand how it works.
You are going way off topic here. Who cares if you say that DUI may refer to something other than alcohol, or that you can be ticketed for speeding? This story is all about compelling people to have their alcohol level measured to get the drunks off the road. You might claim that the police don't need any breathalyzer or blood test evidence to arrest you for DUI, but if that is true why are they going to these lengths to ensure that they do get the evidence? And if you are wrongly arrested for DUI, surely it is in your best interest to have the evidence to prove in court that you were not under the influence.
It is not always illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol
Correct. You need to be over a certain alcohol level. If only they had a way to measure this!
Additionally, roughly 75% of fatal accidents do not involve alcohol.
So 25% of fatal accidents do involve alcohol. It seems reasonable to want to eliminate that portion of the fatalities. Of the remaining 75%, how many of those are caused by excessive speed? That is why they give out speeding tickets to stop people from doing that. And how many accidents are caused by people being distracted by texting on their phones? Well that is why many places around the world are outlawing that practice to. They are not doing it to just annoy the public. They are doing it to save lives.
While you are wrong about what the police are supposed to do (well, you are correct in spirit but that isn't actually the mission of the police), how do you explain their utter failure in changing the number of fatal traffic accidents since the 80's despite the hugely increased focus on alcohol use? Finally, you might be tempted to ask me for citations. Luckily, google is your friend.
I tried google as you suggested. One of the first matches indicates that your statistic is wrong.
A cop's job is to enforce law, not save laws, not prevent crime. If a cop's actions are being easily overturned, then they really aren't enforcing the law, so either they fabricate evidence, or make it virtually impossible to defend.
Do you not understand what HIPAA is about?
Oops. I misread the original message that this referred to the keeping of medical records. The HIPAA does cover the interaction with law enforcement, so I don't see that there should be an automatic assumption that blood tests for drink driving would run afoul of that act.
And you're expecting a road-side judge to be well versed in the law? Look at how many decisions get reversed on appeal.
But how many don't get reversed on appeal? It seems like judges get it right way more than they get it wrong. Your own statistic shows that. One judgement reversal for an entire career?? Shocking!!!
What subtle legal arguments would there be that could mean a warrant should not have been issued at a DUI checkpoint? Why would a judge who has been asked to perform this service not have ensured that they knew the relevant law regarding DUI stops? Would a random slashdot poster know better than someone who has spent many years learning the law?
They don't WANT to provide you with a defense and they don't care if you're innocent. The fact is they have a number from a magic black box that grants them license to treat you as a lesser being for a bit and that's the way they like it.
Right... Which seems more likely? That they go to all this trouble and expense to give themselves a power trip, or that they do it to save lives? If they didn't care about whether you were innocent, why would they want to insist on giving you a blood test? Surely they would just get the judge to compel you to use the breathalyzer and use that to convict you.
It is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, but some still do it anyway and that results in people dying. Trying to prevent the loss of life is exactly what the police are supposed to do.
Normally, the only "proof" needed is a printout from the breathalyzer machine.
Thanks for that. It seems that the changes being mooted in Tampa will be an improvement if it results in the more accurate and repeatable blood tests then.
The "what's next?" is an argument when the example is not a non sequitur like take for example... yours. Having a judge on site to "streamline" the process like this is dangerous because it lessens the boundary between the executive and the judicial powers. Basically overriding the protection of your rights gets boiled down to "Ok you wont let me do this," *turns around, gets a stamp, turns back* "now you have to."
The point of having warrants is to ensure that everything is legal. You can't expect the police to be fully versed in the law (well, you can expect it, but it doesn't happen). Having a judge onsite means you have an expert there to sign off on the legality of the situation. Considering that the situation is very managed in the case of a DUI checkpoint, what would change between one driver and another that would mean a judge should refuse one of those warrants?
I just don't see how having an expert present would make things worse than if he/she was sitting in a courtroom. Considering that a timely resolution is required to ensure the tests can be done to correctly determine whether a crime has been committed, it seems reasonable to have both a mobile lab to administer the blood tests and a mobile court to administer the legal checks.
Unless the previous person blew high enough that there's residual alcohol inside the machine.
You have to blow into those breathalyzers for a good few seconds. That is more than enough to get rid of any residual alcohol.
If they want to stop everybody at random checkpoints like the gestapo, fine, but don't make people who seem sober take any stupid breath tests or blood tests.
And how long would it take to determine if people seemed sober. It is amazing how many people here are offended by the idea of having to stop at a DUI checkpoint, but how much worse would it be if you had to end up waiting in line for half an hour while the police perform sobriety tests on everyone just to determine which of them should blow into a breathalyzer.
Oh, and you can bet a blood test on the side of the road won't meet HIPAA requirements for electronic medical records
Taking blood is not rocket science. It is quite easy to setup a truck with the appropriate facilities for handling blood samples.
You mean the fact that it's an error prone test, that can draw false positives due to diabetes, low-carb dieting, and various non-intoxicated metabolic states, along with the fact that once the test is completed, the results can't easily be challenged and shown to be false, since there is no blood sample with which to do further testing.
Don't they follow up a positive breath test with a blood test? That is how it works in my country. Even if it is not the standard procedure, couldn't you insist on a blood test (since this story shows that they have the facilities to do this).
It must be Apple's "magic" that's causing the trouble.
No, it is not Apple's fault. Anyone using Akamai would have the same problem. I think Microsoft use them for Windows Updates too.