6 ms·

This kind of software should be required by law to be open source.

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
Yes, just like voting machines. But how do we confirm that the software which was vetted is the software that was actually _used_?
- calciphus 6y ago
  Compile it, run it with the same inputs the prosecution claims was provided, and see if you get the same result. That's sorta the point of computers, right? Same inputs on the same program, same output?
  - antidocker 6y ago
    What if compiler hijacked? What if the OS itself hijacked? What if the hardware has built in backdoor?
  - curryst 6y ago
    > Compile it, run it with the same inputs the prosecution claims was provided, and see if you get the same result. That's sorta the point of computers, right? Same inputs on the same program, same output? One difficulty here is that the input is a real world effect. That means the answers are rarely exactly the same. The last time I looked, breathalyzers have a ~50% margin of error. So if you blow a 0.06, your BAC is really somewhere between 0.03 and 0.09. You could mod your breathalyzer to always assume that the reading was 25% higher than the reality without being noticed, as long as your breathalyzer doesn't return a result that's already 25+% higher during testing. Even if it does, your other results will be in range. They need to just stop using breathalyzers. They're inaccurate pieces of machinery, operated by people without any medical knowledge to speak of, who have a vested interest in the readings being high. The whole thing, from top to bottom, is just a long chain of poorly aligned incentives. Field sobriety tests are even worse. The fact that your license can be revoked for refusing the test under the above grounds is nothing short of an end-run around the 4th amendment by declaring driving a "privilege, not a right" despite the fact that it is extremely hard to live in most of the US and not be able to drive. How the fuck do I survive in rural Oklahoma/Georgia/Kentucky/Texas/etc, 40 miles from the nearest bus stop, without a car? And all without any due process. It's never impacted me, but it bothers me nonetheless. They need to force people to go in for a blood draw to establish BAC. It is an accurate test, administered by competent medical professionals, who have no vested interest in the outcome either way. Yes it does take longer. Yes, some people who were at 0.08 will be down to 0.07 by the time the test is administered. I still find that more comforting than the fact that some people at 0.06 will read at 0.09, and some people at 0.14 are going to read at 0.07. There's also the fact that a cop who doesn't calibrate their breathalyzer is merely going to get a slap on the wrist, and a medical professional who does the same is probably going to end up with a huge malpractice suit and possibly lose their license if it was egregious in some way.
    - themaninthedark 6y ago
      > The whole thing, from top to bottom, is just a long chain of poorly aligned incentives. Field sobriety tests are even worse. The fact that your license can be revoked for refusing the test under the above grounds is nothing short of an end-run around the 4th amendment by declaring driving a "privilege, not a right" I agree and I wish I had a better solution. >They need to force people to go in for a blood draw to establish BAC. I know the intention is good, but that seems like a very scary proposition to me. I think the same poorly aligned incentives will line up here too. "We are now partnered exclusively with X-clinic to do all the blood tests." X-clinic just happens to tweak their procedure so that borderline samples end up showing under influence.
      - Jolter 6y ago
        Many jurisdictions would have enough cases come through to justify employing someone trained to draw a blood sample. Btw here (Sweden) the breathalyzer is only used to help decide whether someone gets picked up for a blood draw or not. Only a blood test can be used to convict someone.
        themaninthedark 6y ago
        To be honest, having someone affiliated with the justice department would not be seen as something that increases trust. There are historical and current issues that cause this distrust, having an adversarial or multiple third parties is probably the best option for the US.
    - kart23 6y ago
      >The last time I looked, breathalyzers have a ~50% margin of error Source on this? I know the portable ones are like this, but I thought the actual court-admissible ones are more accurate, and the calibration procedures need to be followed to get a conviction. Also, FSTs are quite good for preliminary screening, a proper HGN test especially. And if you ask for a blood test, they are required to give you one and consider it in court. Cops have no incentive to make people who aren't drinking take FSTs or the breathalyzer, its just a waste of their time. They don't want to be bothering normal people, they want to be taking real dangerous and irresponsible drivers off the road. You survive by not drinking before driving, or having a DD, its really not that hard. Implied consent is the reason for the tests, and you agree to it when you sign for a license. And I think its a worthwhile tradeoff if it actually works to reduce DUI deaths.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - glitchc 6y ago
    Same compiler? Same configuration? Same OS? There will be variations in the output. How much variation is reasonable?
    - fsflover 6y ago
      https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/
  - AntiImperialist 6y ago
    Reproducible builds are not as widespread as you'd imagine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- CivBase 6y ago
  At some point you just have to trust people to not intentionally lie in a trial. We have very stiff penalties for anyone caught lying in court, but there isn't much more we can realistically do.
  - jsjsbdkj 6y ago
    We have stiff penalties for civilians lying in court. Cops can lie in court, get caught, and still have the court accept their version of events as basis for proscution.
- pacamara619 6y ago
  It's not just like voting machines if it's just software. Just give it the same DNA as input and check if your results match the others.
- mseidl 6y ago
  Nobody should use electronic voting.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    People keep saying that but electronic voting would be great! Set it up so the process is exactly like mail-in ballots except digital and you can’t have made it any worse. It’s not like emailing a PDF to be opened by an election official is any different than mailing a document to be opened by that same official.
    - Ekaros 6y ago
      No one should use mail in voting either...
      - Spivak 6y ago
        Except for the sick, disabled, elderly, deceased, people overseas or out-of-town, anyone in the military that's deployed, people who don't have good access to transportation, people who work long continuous shifts like healthcare workers and firefighters, poll workers, people in jail awaiting their trials, people with stalkers...
        Ekaros 6y ago
        Deceased? Why should dead people get to vote? Their votes should be first ones to be invalidated...
    - ryukafalz 6y ago
      How many Nigerian princes have asked for your bank account number via physical mail? How about via email? The internet lowers the barrier to certain forms of abuse substantially enough that I don't think you can so easily say you won't have made it any worse.
      - Spivak 6y ago
- razakel 6y ago
  It's staggering that a slot machine in Vegas has more official scrutiny than a voting machine.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Well, for voting, you just don't use machines. Counting by hand is an easy algorithm to audit, and literally any adult that can count is able to audit the process themselves.
fsflover 6y ago
https://publiccode.eu https://publiccode.eu

Yes, just like voting machines. But how do we confirm that the software which was vetted is the software that was actually _used_?

calciphus 6y ago
Compile it, run it with the same inputs the prosecution claims was provided, and see if you get the same result. That's sorta the point of computers, right? Same inputs on the same program, same output?
- antidocker 6y ago
  What if compiler hijacked? What if the OS itself hijacked? What if the hardware has built in backdoor?
- curryst 6y ago
  > Compile it, run it with the same inputs the prosecution claims was provided, and see if you get the same result. That's sorta the point of computers, right? Same inputs on the same program, same output? One difficulty here is that the input is a real world effect. That means the answers are rarely exactly the same. The last time I looked, breathalyzers have a ~50% margin of error. So if you blow a 0.06, your BAC is really somewhere between 0.03 and 0.09. You could mod your breathalyzer to always assume that the reading was 25% higher than the reality without being noticed, as long as your breathalyzer doesn't return a result that's already 25+% higher during testing. Even if it does, your other results will be in range. They need to just stop using breathalyzers. They're inaccurate pieces of machinery, operated by people without any medical knowledge to speak of, who have a vested interest in the readings being high. The whole thing, from top to bottom, is just a long chain of poorly aligned incentives. Field sobriety tests are even worse. The fact that your license can be revoked for refusing the test under the above grounds is nothing short of an end-run around the 4th amendment by declaring driving a "privilege, not a right" despite the fact that it is extremely hard to live in most of the US and not be able to drive. How the fuck do I survive in rural Oklahoma/Georgia/Kentucky/Texas/etc, 40 miles from the nearest bus stop, without a car? And all without any due process. It's never impacted me, but it bothers me nonetheless. They need to force people to go in for a blood draw to establish BAC. It is an accurate test, administered by competent medical professionals, who have no vested interest in the outcome either way. Yes it does take longer. Yes, some people who were at 0.08 will be down to 0.07 by the time the test is administered. I still find that more comforting than the fact that some people at 0.06 will read at 0.09, and some people at 0.14 are going to read at 0.07. There's also the fact that a cop who doesn't calibrate their breathalyzer is merely going to get a slap on the wrist, and a medical professional who does the same is probably going to end up with a huge malpractice suit and possibly lose their license if it was egregious in some way.
  - themaninthedark 6y ago
    > The whole thing, from top to bottom, is just a long chain of poorly aligned incentives. Field sobriety tests are even worse. The fact that your license can be revoked for refusing the test under the above grounds is nothing short of an end-run around the 4th amendment by declaring driving a "privilege, not a right" I agree and I wish I had a better solution. >They need to force people to go in for a blood draw to establish BAC. I know the intention is good, but that seems like a very scary proposition to me. I think the same poorly aligned incentives will line up here too. "We are now partnered exclusively with X-clinic to do all the blood tests." X-clinic just happens to tweak their procedure so that borderline samples end up showing under influence.
    - Jolter 6y ago
      Many jurisdictions would have enough cases come through to justify employing someone trained to draw a blood sample. Btw here (Sweden) the breathalyzer is only used to help decide whether someone gets picked up for a blood draw or not. Only a blood test can be used to convict someone.
      - themaninthedark 6y ago
        To be honest, having someone affiliated with the justice department would not be seen as something that increases trust. There are historical and current issues that cause this distrust, having an adversarial or multiple third parties is probably the best option for the US.
  - kart23 6y ago
    >The last time I looked, breathalyzers have a ~50% margin of error Source on this? I know the portable ones are like this, but I thought the actual court-admissible ones are more accurate, and the calibration procedures need to be followed to get a conviction. Also, FSTs are quite good for preliminary screening, a proper HGN test especially. And if you ask for a blood test, they are required to give you one and consider it in court. Cops have no incentive to make people who aren't drinking take FSTs or the breathalyzer, its just a waste of their time. They don't want to be bothering normal people, they want to be taking real dangerous and irresponsible drivers off the road. You survive by not drinking before driving, or having a DD, its really not that hard. Implied consent is the reason for the tests, and you agree to it when you sign for a license. And I think its a worthwhile tradeoff if it actually works to reduce DUI deaths.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- glitchc 6y ago
  Same compiler? Same configuration? Same OS? There will be variations in the output. How much variation is reasonable?
  - fsflover 6y ago
    https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/
- AntiImperialist 6y ago
  Reproducible builds are not as widespread as you'd imagine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CivBase 6y ago
At some point you just have to trust people to not intentionally lie in a trial. We have very stiff penalties for anyone caught lying in court, but there isn't much more we can realistically do.
- jsjsbdkj 6y ago
  We have stiff penalties for civilians lying in court. Cops can lie in court, get caught, and still have the court accept their version of events as basis for proscution.
pacamara619 6y ago
It's not just like voting machines if it's just software. Just give it the same DNA as input and check if your results match the others.
mseidl 6y ago
Nobody should use electronic voting.
- Spivak 6y ago
  People keep saying that but electronic voting would be great! Set it up so the process is exactly like mail-in ballots except digital and you can’t have made it any worse. It’s not like emailing a PDF to be opened by an election official is any different than mailing a document to be opened by that same official.
  - Ekaros 6y ago
    No one should use mail in voting either...
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Except for the sick, disabled, elderly, deceased, people overseas or out-of-town, anyone in the military that's deployed, people who don't have good access to transportation, people who work long continuous shifts like healthcare workers and firefighters, poll workers, people in jail awaiting their trials, people with stalkers...
      - Ekaros 6y ago
        Deceased? Why should dead people get to vote? Their votes should be first ones to be invalidated...
  - ryukafalz 6y ago
    How many Nigerian princes have asked for your bank account number via physical mail? How about via email? The internet lowers the barrier to certain forms of abuse substantially enough that I don't think you can so easily say you won't have made it any worse.
    - Spivak 6y ago
razakel 6y ago
It's staggering that a slot machine in Vegas has more official scrutiny than a voting machine.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Well, for voting, you just don't use machines. Counting by hand is an easy algorithm to audit, and literally any adult that can count is able to audit the process themselves.

fsflover 6y ago

https://publiccode.eu https://publiccode.eu