Radley points to this story about a Minnesota ruling that the state must give a man convicted of drunk driving access to the source code of the breathalyzer used in the case against him. Radley gets it exactly right:
This is a great ruling, and needs to happen more often. Not just for breath machines, but for red light and speed cameras, too.
The companies that make these machines have in the past refused to turn over source code, which in some instances has led to mass acquittals.
You’re supposed to have the right to confront your accuser in this country. If these machines are going to be the only thing standing between an innocent person and the wreckage that comes with a DWI conviction, defendants have every right to examine their margin for error, how they process breath samples, and whether they’re tamper-proof.
Quite so. I also think the “trade secret” argument is a bit of a red herring:
This isn’t the first time breathalyzer source code has been the subject of legal scrutiny. A Florida court ruled two years ago that police can’t use electronic breathalyzers as courtroom evidence against drivers unless the source code is disclosed. Other alleged drunk drivers have had charges thrown out because CMI refuses to reveal the Intoxilyzer source code.
If a state is contractually prohibited from allowing a defendant from examining all relevant evidence in a criminal case—and that’s what the source code is—then the state should have to choose between re-negotiating the contract or dropping the case. Any trade secret issues are and should be the problem of the prosecutors, not the defendant.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.