On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Declan McCullagh
Posted on ZDNet News: Oct 21, 2005 3:59:00 PM

"Police blotter" is a weekly report on the intersection of technology and the law. This episode: Should computers with secret methods of operation be used to convict Americans accused of drunk driving?

What: A dispute in Sarasota County, Fla., involving whether defendants accused of drunk driving should have the right to examine the innards of a portable "Intoxilyzer" computer used by police.

When: A hearing is scheduled before five county judges on Friday.

Who: Robert Harrison, an attorney in Venice, Fla., says he will ask the court to divulge the source code to the Intoxilyzer.

Background: The outcomes of hundreds of drunk-driving prosecutions in Florida are up in the air because of a dispute over whether defendants should be entitled to review the inner workings of the machines used to do breath tests.

Defense attorneys say their clients should have the right to inspect the source code to breathalyzers that were once certified for police use but subsequently changed without re-certification.

So far, Florida courts have split on the topic, some tossing out cases involving breath-alcohol tests and others concluding that the information about the machine's workings should remain a trade secret. The Intoxilyzer 500, a simple computer that uses 168KB of RAM, is manufactured by CMI of Owensboro, Ky.

The dispute could determine how much flexibility police departments have in modifying breathalyzers after they've been officially certified. But it's unlikely to produce any general requirement that source code be made available for public scrutiny.

An excerpt from one Florida appeals court's opinionaddressed manuals and schematics but not software source code: "When a person risks the loss of driving privileges or perhaps freedom based upon the use and operation of a particular machine, full information includes operating manuals, maintenance manuals and schematics in order to determine whether the machine actually used to determine the extent of a defendant's intoxication is the same unmodified model that was approved pursuant to statutory procedures. It seems to us that one should not have privileges and freedom jeopardized by the results of a mystical machine that is immune from discovery, that inhales breath samples and that produces a report specifying a degree of intoxication."

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 18 Talkback(s)
How about this screwball?
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2005/02/08/image672551x.jpg

Read the rest)
Posted by: osreinstall Posted on: 10/23/05 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
RE: Closed sourse breathalyzer  gwzap2008 | 10/21/05
Small problem - the law  voice_of_all_reason | 10/21/05
Actually this happen before court  voska | 10/21/05
Not that i disagree, but its the same with radar guns  Been_Done_Before | 10/21/05
Are you absolutely sure...  Henry Miller | 10/21/05
What whiners! The next thing you know ...  Judas I. | 10/21/05
Actually  Loverock Davidson | 10/21/05
Horrors! Don't tell me you AGREE ...  Judas I. | 10/21/05
The Police State  kzpj7z | 10/21/05
Throw it out if the test was rigged  osreinstall | 10/21/05
Took ya long enough, osreinstall!  Judas I. | 10/22/05
I would exceed the max number of ascii charactors!  osreinstall | 10/22/05
Pretty good, but not quite wacko enough, osreinstall  Judas I. | 10/23/05
How about this screwball?  osreinstall | 10/23/05
When you measure lawful and unlawful by fractions and decimals  Boot_Agnostic | 10/21/05
I have to agree  el1jones | 10/21/05
Sounds a lot easier the reverse engineering the product.  chrislovesdana | 10/21/05
Sounds like another Diebold thing to me:|  btljooz | 10/22/05

What do you think?

SmartPlanet

Click Here