August 9th, 2007, 11:38
Can I please see the source code, occifer?
August 9th, 2007, 12:13
Yet another loophole in our laws. The easiest way to resolve this is to show him the source code and have him sign a NDA.
Then, have an outside firm perform experiments to test the device and have it "certified" -- similar to a radar gun. That way it cannot be disputed in a court of law.
August 9th, 2007, 12:22
The source code to these things doesn't seem like it would be that important, it's mostly just a sensor and a display to my knowledge.
It's interesting what happens when you apply our constitutional evidence of habeas corpus to evidence collected and analyzed by machines.
August 9th, 2007, 13:06
The code is, in all likelihood, fine. It's just a diversionary tactic by some guy trying to build up his defense for as long as he can before he gets slapped with a DUI.
Originally Posted by PHPRalph
August 9th, 2007, 13:07
True, still I don't see why they won't release the damn code already.
August 9th, 2007, 13:46
That's a really good point, Robert.
Originally Posted by Robert
But I'm sure there's plenty of different makes/models of breathalizers(sp?) being used in the United States, so it would have to be done for each and every one.
August 9th, 2007, 14:17
Not technically it wouldn't, only if these source code defenses become popular enough that it would actually save them effort to do. Otherwise, they only have to do it when it's asked for.
August 9th, 2007, 15:47
True, but imagine if a breathalyser company had their product certified to be accurate and have papers to stand up in a court of law. Then they could advertise that as a plus and police departments around the U.S. would use it instead.
Originally Posted by jmiller
August 9th, 2007, 16:01
Still only matters if these "let's see the source" cases become common enough to be a PITA for the cops.
August 9th, 2007, 20:22
That is... interesting.
A random number generator, huh?