home
DUI Laywers Seek Intoxilyzer Source Code | 13 comments (13 topical)
Re: DUI Laywers Seek Intoxilyzer Source Code (none / 0) (#1)
by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 12:26:50 PM EST
While I develop open source software, and I am a fervent believer in open source software, and I strongly believe that government should be using open source software whenever and wherever it can, I don't think that examining the source code here is necessary nor sufficient. I do think it would be very important to examine the source code, BUT, I would be more interested in their testing protocols and all of their test results, I think that could tell just as much about what the device can and cannot do. The law treats science in a fundamentally broken manner. Judges with no technical expertise arrogantly (ignorantly?) write all sorts of stupid decisions that make all sorts of scientific judgements. A former employee of International Airport Centers, who is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with them, returned his company laptop as required. Hoping to find incriminating evidence, I.A.C. attempted to retrieve deleted information from the laptop in question with no success. This employee had beaten them to the punch. He had used 'secure delete' software, in order to make sure nothing could be recovered. He is now being charged with a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In this case, Judge Posner wrote that Ordinarily, pressing the "delete" key on a computer (or using a mouse click to delete) does not affect the data sought to be deleted; it merely removes the index entry and pointers to the data file so that the file appears no longer to be there, and the space allocated to that file is made available for future write commands. Such "deleted" files are easily recoverable. But his statement is just not true. For years and years and years, deleting a file meant the file was deleted. On other operating systems, or in secure environments, deleting a file meant the file was g.o.n.e. And even on Windows, Windows can be set up in a normal everyday fashion so that is true. I know, I work in a secure facility that requires such deletion efforts. Posner's flat out statement is not true, but by assuming it is, he makes the argument that the employee's placing a secure deletion program on the machine is an act of malice. It's not an act of malice. That and the use of encrypted file systems should probably be everyone's day to day operation of their computer and how they protect their privacy, and their client's privacy, and their employer's privacy from theft. And in fact, I am required by my employer to operate my computer in exactly that manner. Near as I can tell, law is easy, but real world experience is hard. I think that every higher court should have a majority of lawyers on it, and a significant minority of other accomplished individuals: physicists, biologists, mathematicians, restauranteers, chemists, engineeers, actors, etc., on a 2 year term.

DUI Laywers Seek Intoxilyzer Source Code | 13 comments (13 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft