Breathalyzers and Open Source

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: EEkid () aol com
Date: October 23, 2005 10:32:48 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Breathalyzers and Open Source




Breathalyzers and Open Source

Friday October 21, 2005 by Edward W. Felten

Lawyers for 150 Floridians accused of drunk driving have asked a  
court to order the disclosure of the source code for software running  
in the breathalyzer machines used by police to analyze their blood  
alcohol level, according to a Tom Sanders story on vunet.

The defendants say they have the right to examine the machines that  
accused them, and that a meaningful examination requires access to  
the machines’ software. Prosecutors say the code is a trade secret.

The accused are right that one needs the code to understand fully how  
the machines work. The machines consist of sensors, a user interface,  
and control software. The software is the “brain” of the machine, and  
it is almost certainly involved in the calculations that derive a  
blood alcohol value from the sensor readings, as well as the display  
of the calculated value. If the accused have the right to fully  
examine the machines — and the article says that they do under  
Florida law — then they should see the source code.

Contrary to the article and some other commentators, this is not a  
dispute over whether the software should be open source. The accused  
aren’t seeking to open the software to everybody; they only want it  
opened to their legal teams.

There are standard practices for handling trade-secret information  
that must be turned over in court cases. A court will typically  
establish a protective order, which is a kind of nondisclosure  
agreement covering secret material that is turned over by one side to  
the other. The protective order will require parties to keep the  
information secret and to use it only for purposes related to the  
court proceedings. Typically the information can be turned over to a  
limited number of expert analysts who have also signed the protective  
order. Documents containing secret information are filed under seal,  
and testimony about secret matters may take place in a closed courtroom.

So this issue is not about open source, but about ensuring fairness  
for the accused. If they’re going to be accused based on what some  
machine says, then they ought to be allowed to challenge the accuracy  
of the machine. And they can’t do that unless they’re allowed to know  
how the machine works.

You might argue that the machine’s technical manuals convey enough  
information. Having read many manuals and examine the innards of many  
software systems, I’m skeptical of such claims. Often, knowing how  
the maker says a machine works is a poor substitute for knowing how  
it actually works. If a machine is flawed, it’s likely the maker will  
either (a) not know about the flaw or (b) be unwilling to admit it  
exists.

If the article’s description of Florida law is correct, this seems  
like a pretty easy decision for the court.

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=914

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/