All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
20 Oct 2005
A Florida court will hear arguments on Friday in a case where the accuracy of a breathalyser is being scrutinised because the manufacturer has refused to release the source code.
Lawyers representing more than 150 defendants who have been charged for driving under the influence of alcohol in two Florida counties will file the request.
They argue that they have a right to see the source code of the alcohol breath analyser that was used to determine their clients' guilt.
"None of the [software] programs that was used here is approved," said Robert Harrison, a lawyer representing some of the defendants.
"The question is whether the difference [between these programs] is material or not. Without seeing the source code, we do not know."
At the centre of the controversy is the Intoxilyzer 5000, a device made by CMI of Ownsboro, Kentucky.
A marketing brochure for the device claims that it has been used for more than 25 years, and touts it as the "standard for accuracy, reliability and courtroom evidence".
Information on the internet shows that the Intoxilyzer 5000 is being used worldwide, including in Norway, the US and Canada. CMI did not return repeated phone calls seeking further information.
Florida approved the Intoxilyzer 5000 in 1993, but the manufacturer has since made numerous changes which Harrison argues have not been certified. CMI had to recall its devices in at least one case due to a software error, he said.
Releasing the source code of the device could take away any doubt about its accuracy, but the manufacturer has said in the past that it refuses to do so because it considers that information a trade secret.
This refusal could have far reaching consequences, potentially giving those convicted of 'Driving Under the Influence' a reason to appeal against their rulings.
It also has caused a backlog of such cases that await the results of this case to determine whether evidence gathered by the Intoxilyzer 5000 is still admissible in court.
Latest stories from Law
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
My client is a well established, non profit organisation;...
PHP Web Developer – £30,000 - £35,000 PHP, MySQL, HTML...
HEAD OF DIGITAL - London - £80-95K + Excellent Bens...
Agile C# Developer - (North London) £55,000 - £65,000...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
liberty interest
unlike a source code for your car, a breath machine creats a vested interest for the most precious of rights-liberty and as such all evidence to be used against you should be transparent.
Posted by: david 08 Aug 2006
airliners and car crashes
Uhmm... now everytime an airliner crashes... we should open up the source code to determine if it was tested robustly! Then sue the airlines if it wasn't. If I have a car accident, should I open up the source code to the braking system to enure the brakes engaged as specified? YES! There should be standards for all SW in embedded systems!
Posted by: S K 16 Nov 2005
where is the theroy "chain of evdance in this
the problem in any device like this is in calibration drift something like this needs to be calabrated befor and after any test befor its results can be trusted not just the software the amount of achol is in the parts per billons its hard to keep labtroy equpment calabrated to this dregee of acuratcy let alone something rideing around in a car the same holds trus for police rader
Posted by: rob 02 Nov 2005
Blackbox testing
I response to Jim's comment arguing for blackbox testing, remember that proving a program's accuracy through testing is impossible (not just in practice, but in theory) - the only way to prove a program's accuracy is through analysis of its source code.
Posted by: Safalra 21 Oct 2005
Black Box testing
I have been in S/W verififcation for my entire career, 16 years now in the telecom industry. Black box testing is excellent for success path testing, but can never, ever, completely cover failure path testing, the variables are too great and you can't know what they are without seeing the source. No one who hasn't seen the source code, no matter how much testing, can state, in court, there are no flaws. Here's a simple example, suppose at EXACTLY 64% humidity, the machine is off by a factor of two. at 63, it is fine, at 65, it is fine, but at 64, the software does not handle the carry over from 111111 Binary to 1000000 Binary correctly. What about flaws if unit is just powered up and not warm? How about if unit is cold and inaccurate because of temperature delta between unit and breath? Does smog affect it's accuracy? I see that this is going to get messy because you have the right to confront your accuser, in this case, it is a trade secret piece of software. that's why, in Canada, last I knew, a blood test is used to verify results. Pass blood test, no DUI.
Posted by: Kevin 21 Oct 2005
Black box testing impossible !!
Please refrain from making general statements like "black testing is impossible" For a system with no feedback and with a limited number of inputs, blackbox testing should be straight forward
Posted by: Gani 21 Oct 2005
Testing
One doesnt need to see the source to verify accuracy. What about black box testing?
Posted by: Jim 20 Oct 2005