Reading this makes me think that devices running closed source software should not be allowed in court or as evidence at all. But what about those who are in jail right now? Can they get a re-trail since they had not been given the opportunity to question or examine the evidence against them?
I would say that those already in jail should get to examine the code, if a relevant problem is found then they get a new trial.
And how about the fact that the breathalyzer is defective by design? It’s built assuming there’s a constant ratio between blood alcohol and breath alcohol but this ratio varies from person to person.
These devices are working in the role of expert witness.
If any evidence is found of an expert witness lacking competence or tampering with crime scene evidence, then all affected trials are invalid.
If we are talking about jury trials we will run into the same issues here that medicine has been dealing with for years.
The average juror has no more idea about the intricacies of coding than they do about the intricacies of DNA.
It simply becomes the expert on one side debating the expert on the other side using terminology the jury does not understand and cannot be expected to learn in the time allotted.
So conviction or acquittal still will wind up being determined by the affability, dress, or communication style of one team versus another.
Imagine if Volkswagen was writing the code for these devices!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
