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?

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

>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.

> [Cops] don't want to be bothering normal people, they want to be taking real dangerous and irresponsible drivers off the road.

That's the nice theory we all wish we lived in, but the reality all over the world is that police will extremely often do things for their own petty reasons, often systematically. Police departments often have quotas for tickets, they can often extract a bribe by threatening someone with a DUI, they can simply want to scare 'undesirables' out of a 'nice neighborhood'.

In general, there are good reasons to be extremely weary of the police and their motives.

I agree. The solution is to make people aware of their rights and know what to do when a cop is doing something shady, not weaken the tools that the justice system has for going after things like DUI. Most departments have bodycam requirements now, and citizens have the power to impose steep penalties upon dirty cops.

I stand by that statement though, giving bullshit tickets and fines means that cop will likely just have to spend more time in court trying to defend hopeless cases and eventually get investigated for this kind of activity.

Not true universally. In-car breathalyzers are calibrated regularly; have margins much closer to 10%. They are portable and simple to use.

Maybe in the 'bad old days' it was worse. But today its been scrutinized in court so many times, it has to be bulletproof to get deployed.

Now, blood testing may differ from breath testing. Which is aligned with impaired driving? Breath testing may be the better measure. If state laws are often couched in terms of breath alcohol, then they are the only correct measure.

Same compiler? Same configuration? Same OS? There will be variations in the output. How much variation is reasonable?

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.

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.

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.

It's staggering that a slot machine in Vegas has more official scrutiny than a voting machine.

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.

Nobody should use electronic voting.

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.

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.

I mean none because Gmail's spam filters are pretty good these days but I take your point. I'm not at all saying people should be trained to vote via unsolicited email. You would have to ask for digital voting when you register. And you would of course be able to check that your ballot was received through the same online form that already exists for mail-in ballots.

Right now you already give election officials your email for mail-in ballots and if there's a problem with your ballot they'll email you!

I think we could do a lot better than this when it comes to online voting but as a baseline optionally replacing the transport from physical mail to email I don't think would be the end of the world.

No one should use mail in voting either...

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...

Deceased? Why should dead people get to vote? Their votes should be first ones to be invalidated...