On GameFAQs: The top 10 strangest game bosses
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 15 of 34:
Next »
« Previous
Technical information on devices used to convict someone must be public!
I personally believe at this point that the defense here is grasaping at straws, and they won't find anything in the source code of the device.

On the other hand, I also believe that technical information regarding how a device works, including all source code, ROM dumps, etc, must be made available when the output of that device is primarily used to convict someone of a crime. No proprietary trade secrets should be allowed. The need to maintain an accountable criminal justice system heavily outweighs the rights for a company to keep trade secrets as intellectual property. If the company wants to horde IP, then it has the right and the choice to not manufature these devices and enter some other lines of business.

Here, I'm talking about devices that are *primarily* used for law enforcement, like breathanalyzers, radar guns, and the like. I'm not talking about the VCR, Tivo, or personal computer that happen to be involved in a crime, even if the crime strongly relies on evidence produced on such devices (such as a video). For the latter, the decision to "open up the trade secrets" can be made by a judge, and sealed if necessary. But devices primarily used for law enforcement should be open to the point that a third party can independently create the device from the specifications and verify its operation and correctness.

Cheers!
Posted by: Root User   Posted on: 11/04/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Go straight to the blood test  John Zern | 11/03/05
Depending on the test..  Patrick Jones | 11/04/05
How do you think they test the blood?  Sir_Chancealot | 11/04/05
You can't force a blood test  bidemytime | 11/04/05
Yes  Real World | 11/04/05
This varies by state  archerjoe | 11/04/05
Actually, you can (but you shouldn't)  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Cautionary tale from my state  bidemytime | 11/04/05
Good choice!  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
More like a fairtale  DarthRidiculous | 11/06/05
Before you go and begin believing in your rights  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Blood Test required???  BernieLyons | 11/04/05
Yes you do in NJ  DarthRidiculous | 11/06/05
I don't feel like doing that...that would hurt...  Grayson Peddie | 11/04/05
Technical information on devices used to convict someone must be public!  Root User | 11/04/05
Does the device work as intended?  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
Sorry, I disagree.  Root User | 11/04/05
When a device must be accurate...  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
States are interested in convictions, not accuracy  rhavyn | 11/04/05
The Courts worked...  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
Just don't rely on the courts every time  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Faux naif argument  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
I disagree  Real World | 11/04/05
What happened to testing?  salmon | 11/04/05
Yes and no.  Dr_Zinj | 11/04/05
finally somebody thinking "lowtech"  bongo_z | 11/04/05
Ivory tower thinking  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Accurate?  HiRezL | 11/07/05
Forgot to mention...  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Voting Machine are as Important  jtmort | 11/04/05
Not true, properly designed voting procedures will  Update victim | 11/04/05
But what if ...  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
They can and do force blood test  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Driving NOT a privilege  WCarlS | 11/04/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

IT Solutions for 2010

  • Get cost-effective strategies and roadmaps on the most important issues facing IT leaders in 2010! Learn how to easily cut costs and deliver greater efficiency starting with your database, IT compliance management and data center. Visit the IT Leaders Dashboard. Visit the IT Leaders Dashboard.
  • Read about top issues IT decision-makers face every day, plus get cost effective solutions to real life IT problems. Oracle Topline