Comments on: Sobering case of CMI breathalyzers http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ryan Scott Scheel http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006/comment-page-1#comment-782341 Ryan Scott Scheel Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:29:55 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006#comment-782341 (I have no benefit whatsoever for posting the following link, other than informing other people) http://www.duiblog.com/ The writer at DUI Blog has been going on about this for a few months now, along with other parts of the DUI and MADD problems he sees in the judicial system. So, Jon, you keep trying to protest against the draconian IP laws. He'll write about the draconian drug laws. Overall injustice in both systems. (I have no benefit whatsoever for posting the following link, other than informing other people)

http://www.duiblog.com/

The writer at DUI Blog has been going on about this for a few months now, along with other parts of the DUI and MADD problems he sees in the judicial system. So, Jon, you keep trying to protest against the draconian IP laws. He’ll write about the draconian drug laws. Overall injustice in both systems.

]]> By: Rekrul http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006/comment-page-1#comment-781840 Rekrul Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:50:23 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006#comment-781840 The only reason not produce the code is if the company has something to hide. It's not like there's a risk of hackers finding a way to remotely access such devices. The only reason not produce the code is if the company has something to hide. It’s not like there’s a risk of hackers finding a way to remotely access such devices.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006/comment-page-1#comment-781839 Reader's Write Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:49:46 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006#comment-781839 I am sure there is a very good reason that CMI doesn't want to show it's source code. Since their reputation is on the line in this, anything that shows negatively will without doubt reflect in continuing business with the states across the nation. Not only that but if it is showed to be faulty, then all past cases could be ruled invalid where convictions have been made where this instrument was used as the evidence. It is likely there is such a problem in the code or CMI would not be refusing to release the source code, even at the astronomical fine of $10,000 a day that Florida court has already initiated against them for the refusal to turn over the source code. Finally the state contact so states that they have no claim on the copyright in relation with the state. “all right, title, and interest in all copyrightable material” that CMI creates as part of the contract “will be the property of the state.” They gave up any copyright claims with the sales of the units to this state. They signed over those rights as a term of sales. No one can prove there is a problem unless such source code can be examined. As such, no one can prove they are innocent if the equipment is at fault. Sounds to me like there is a lot of vested interests colluding to prevent discovery, despite the contract saying that CMI has no claim on copyright through agreement as a sales term. This is a catch 22 that can not be solved by demonstrating how without being able to see the source code. Seems to me that they are more interested in protecting their jobs as lawyers and judges as well as the state's legal reputation than getting down to the truth of the matter. Looks to me like it would be time at this point to seek other makers of breath analyzers to fulfill the states need for this task. I am sure there is a very good reason that CMI doesn’t want to show it’s source code. Since their reputation is on the line in this, anything that shows negatively will without doubt reflect in continuing business with the states across the nation. Not only that but if it is showed to be faulty, then all past cases could be ruled invalid where convictions have been made where this instrument was used as the evidence.

It is likely there is such a problem in the code or CMI would not be refusing to release the source code, even at the astronomical fine of $10,000 a day that Florida court has already initiated against them for the refusal to turn over the source code.

Finally the state contact so states that they have no claim on the copyright in relation with the state. “all right, title, and interest in all copyrightable material” that CMI creates as part of the contract “will be the property of the state.” They gave up any copyright claims with the sales of the units to this state. They signed over those rights as a term of sales.

No one can prove there is a problem unless such source code can be examined. As such, no one can prove they are innocent if the equipment is at fault. Sounds to me like there is a lot of vested interests colluding to prevent discovery, despite the contract saying that CMI has no claim on copyright through agreement as a sales term. This is a catch 22 that can not be solved by demonstrating how without being able to see the source code. Seems to me that they are more interested in protecting their jobs as lawyers and judges as well as the state’s legal reputation than getting down to the truth of the matter.

Looks to me like it would be time at this point to seek other makers of breath analyzers to fulfill the states need for this task.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006/comment-page-1#comment-781521 Reader's Write Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:53:59 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17006#comment-781521 "The court determined that a defendant must demonstrate that an examination of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN’s software would show defects in its operation or at least would be necessary to determine whether defects exist. In the consolidated cases before it, State v. Underdahl and State v. Brunner, the court found that the defendants had not made such a showing and thus failed to show how the code relates to their guilt or innocence.” This court is populated by morons. The burden to demonstrate guilt is on the accusing party. the accused is not require to demonstrate his/her innocence, overwise people can be condammned only on suspition. Hellooooo! Justice work by the consensus only of all citizen. Without this consensus the justice is powerless. Credibility is important to maintain this consensus. Justice with no creibility = No Justice. And no Justice=No Peace. It is time to dismiss some of these judges too lazy to read the constitution in order to protect our society and our country. “The court determined that a defendant must demonstrate that an examination of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN’s software would show defects in its operation or at least would be necessary to determine whether defects exist. In the consolidated cases before it, State v. Underdahl and State v. Brunner, the court found that the defendants had not made such a showing and thus failed to show how the code relates to their guilt or innocence.”

This court is populated by morons. The burden to demonstrate guilt is on the accusing party.

the accused is not require to demonstrate his/her innocence, overwise people can be condammned only on suspition.

Hellooooo!

Justice work by the consensus only of all citizen. Without this consensus the justice is powerless. Credibility is important to maintain this consensus.

Justice with no creibility = No Justice. And no Justice=No Peace.

It is time to dismiss some of these judges too lazy to read the constitution in order to protect our society and our country.

]]>