DUI case may set black box voting precedent.

[brainshrub]

Could some of you BBV activists review this?

I just wrote an analysis of what may be an important precedent for BBV activists. However, corporate-free media is my forte; And while I do agree that BBV is very important, I haven't read enough about it to consider myself an expert.

Here is the link, and a sample paragraph:

www.brainshrub.com/dui-bbv

DUI case may set black box voting precedent.
People who are fighting for open and honest elections in this country may soon have those accused of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) to thank for an important precedent working its way through the courts.

According to vnunet.com: "A Florida court will hear arguments on Friday in a case where the accuracy of a breathalyzer is being scrutinized because the manufacturer has refused to release the source code."<snip>

The defendants in the Florida DUI case are arguing that proprietary code that is above scrutiny is like having a witness against you that does not need to testify in court. I'm not a lawyer, but the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution seems to favor the defendants. <snip>

If a computer is the primary witness against someone being accused of a DUI, then it should stand to reason that the code on the machine would be a material witness.

If the judge in Florida agrees with the defendants, it should be fairly easy to argue that if proprietary, non-transparent code can't be used to reasonably determine guilt, then it shouldn't be reasonably trusted to tally votes accurately.

If you see errors, or you think I should elaborate, please say so in this thread or register and post comments on the Brainshrub.com site.

Thanks-in-advance.

P.S.: I love the work you folks are doing.

[napi21]

1. I think you should explain why. What precident is working it's

way through the courts?

[brainshrub]

2. I edited the original post to elaborate a bit. (eom)

[jilln]

3. error in first sentence

it's = it is

its = possessive

[oneighty]

4. Gee

We do know what the OP means cause we be very smart peoples.

180

[brainshrub]

5. Fixed it.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

But what about the article itself? Was it okay?

[oneighty]

6. Our local

county Judge would throw out speeding tickets based on radar because of his military experience with radar.

I will not judge the judge, but some things must be questioned.

180

[yowzayowzayowza]

7. Excellent discussion!!! If I may,

manufacturing enterprises the werld over reliably construct gazillions of widgets every day on devices for which they lack source code. They accomplish this by auditing the machines functionality commensurate with the risks of failure.

I'm sure all here would agree that the risk of erroneous election results and wrongful incarceration demand pristine functionality. EACH of these devices should be required to pass real werld testing. Faith in design, source code and certification testing are insufficient to mitigate the risk of the failure of a single device. Further...

- Source code is no guarantee that a specific device is calibrated and operating correctly.
- In a large inventory of devices the number of revisions of source code in use can be very high.
- Source code can contain bugs that are VERY difficult to identify and a lil clever design can go a long way.

Source code is no panacea, AUDITING can be. In the case of these types of devices, we need a high frequency of real werld functionality verification for EVERY device. The risk of failure is too high.

So, my question (and I'm sure an issue with the court will be): how is EACH breathalyzer audited?

[brainshrub]

10. Great question! State courts may make more companies use opensource.

I'm looking forward to the results of this case. What may end up happening is that the courts will force major software companies to make their software opensource and auditable.

[emlev]

8. I've heard landshark refer to this issue n/t

[Land Shark]

9. I always say "you can't have an expert testify in even a simple case..."

"you can't have an expert testify in even a simple case without disclosing the expert's data, and the expert's methods." In elections, the data are the ballots, and the methods is the process of vote counting.

I think it's great to look at the DUI case. Sort of.

Actually, given the above standards (most states you can throw out a speeding ticket by asking for disclosure of the radar gun's operations and impeaching or moving to dismiss if not provided and there's a case to be made that it's at issue) I would not use the phrase "may set a precedent" or anything like that.

We don't need to "set a precedent" that data and methods have to be disclosed. It's already basic law, basic science, basic transparency.

These cases are about trade secret "rights" colliding with transparency and the "BALANCING" OF rights courts often do in cases of conflict. But in this case, there can be no equality with democracy on one side and trade secret "rights" on the other.

If data and methods are not disclosed (get ready for important FRAME HERE) THERE'S NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR CONFIDENCE IN THE REPORTED RESULTS OF THE PROCESS. Just non-rational faith.

So, i'd be careful about suggesting that we are on such thin ice that a new precedent is needed. In fact, the emperor not only has no clothes , he has no wardrobe and he lives in a glass house. no disclosure no confidence and NO DUE PROCESS in even a simple case. This is not controversial stuff we need new precedent for folks. We're fighting pure bullshit, that's all.

[garybeck]

11. there already is a precedent

I can't remember what it is. I think Mod Mom has posted about it several times. Some kind of device that the government buys and they rejected it when the vendor was using "proprietary" software.