4 ms·

Related to that: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/05/software_proble.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/05/software_prob... Defense at

Related to that: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/05/software_proble.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/05/software_prob... Defense attorneys in a DUI case got their hands on the source code for the breathalyzer. It turned out to have terrible programming, e.g. calculating new averages by averaging a new value with the previous average. The case went all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which still found the device to be acceptable.

cochleari_major 2y ago
“Which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings”, funny enough looks like the opposite of what’s going on.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  Maybe it averages from newest -> oldest With software that bad, who can say
  - weaksauce 2y ago
    yeah the language is slightly ambiguous enough where you can't for certain know. first vs newest. the issue is that taken as a whole the quantization of the samples into 8 bins is a much bigger issue along with the problem of the no hardware watchdog or hardware malfunction alarms. along with the poor testing methodologies too.
- danaris 2y ago
  Well, of course, because that statement is deeply incorrect—the described mistake would cause the most recent reading to have more weight. If you have a set of readings, say, [0.1, 0.02, 0.3, 0.05, 0.08], normally when you average them you would get 0.55—the mean of the set. Calculating the average by "averaging the new reading with the previous average" would mean new + old / 2 every time. That means that for each reading after the first, your "averages" would be: [0.06, 0.18, 0.115, 0.195]. If we add a new reading of 0.01 to each of these, in the first case, we would get an average of 0.46, and in the second case, 0.1025. As you can see, even taking into account the already-very-skewed numbers, the second case biases it much further in favor of the new reading (which, in this case, is very low compared to the existing readings).
  - eastbound 2y ago
    For an insurance, I had to perform the average of questions for contracts such as “Did it go to court”: 1-Yes 2-No 3-Unspecified Of course the average was around 2.011.
  - kylecazar 2y ago
    In the first example you'd divide that by 5, or am I misunderstanding something
epgui 2y ago
On the face of it, that's absolutely insane.
- krisoft 2y ago
  Idk, hard to guess based on the layman description, but maybe what they are describing is a rolling average? That would be quite a standard low-pass filter for applications like this. Hard to get upset over that. What matters is not the signal processing but the validation. You take a bunch of people with various blood alcohol levels measured by some already accepted lab technique and you verify that your new measurement technique is measuring within some acceptable error bound of that.
  - secondcoming 2y ago
    That’s not the formula for a rolling average though
    - aidenn0 2y ago
      An exponential moving average is a form of weighted rolling average that would match the plain-text description in the complaint and is often used in signal processing as an IIR low-pass filter (an unweighted rolling average over a window is an FIR filter)
    - wnoise 2y ago
      It is the formula for an exponentially weighted moving average. Which is not appropriate here...
hiatus 2y ago
The full opinion can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2008/a-96-06-doc.html https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2008/a...

cochleari_major 2y ago

“Which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings”, funny enough looks like the opposite of what’s going on.

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
Maybe it averages from newest -> oldest With software that bad, who can say
- weaksauce 2y ago
  yeah the language is slightly ambiguous enough where you can't for certain know. first vs newest. the issue is that taken as a whole the quantization of the samples into 8 bins is a much bigger issue along with the problem of the no hardware watchdog or hardware malfunction alarms. along with the poor testing methodologies too.
danaris 2y ago
Well, of course, because that statement is deeply incorrect—the described mistake would cause the most recent reading to have more weight. If you have a set of readings, say, [0.1, 0.02, 0.3, 0.05, 0.08], normally when you average them you would get 0.55—the mean of the set. Calculating the average by "averaging the new reading with the previous average" would mean new + old / 2 every time. That means that for each reading after the first, your "averages" would be: [0.06, 0.18, 0.115, 0.195]. If we add a new reading of 0.01 to each of these, in the first case, we would get an average of 0.46, and in the second case, 0.1025. As you can see, even taking into account the already-very-skewed numbers, the second case biases it much further in favor of the new reading (which, in this case, is very low compared to the existing readings).
- eastbound 2y ago
  For an insurance, I had to perform the average of questions for contracts such as “Did it go to court”: 1-Yes 2-No 3-Unspecified Of course the average was around 2.011.
- kylecazar 2y ago
  In the first example you'd divide that by 5, or am I misunderstanding something

epgui 2y ago

On the face of it, that's absolutely insane.

krisoft 2y ago
Idk, hard to guess based on the layman description, but maybe what they are describing is a rolling average? That would be quite a standard low-pass filter for applications like this. Hard to get upset over that. What matters is not the signal processing but the validation. You take a bunch of people with various blood alcohol levels measured by some already accepted lab technique and you verify that your new measurement technique is measuring within some acceptable error bound of that.
- secondcoming 2y ago
  That’s not the formula for a rolling average though
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    An exponential moving average is a form of weighted rolling average that would match the plain-text description in the complaint and is often used in signal processing as an IIR low-pass filter (an unweighted rolling average over a window is an FIR filter)
  - wnoise 2y ago
    It is the formula for an exponentially weighted moving average. Which is not appropriate here...

hiatus 2y ago

The full opinion can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2008/a-96-06-doc.html https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2008/a...