They make a good point.

It looks like those alleged drunken drivers in Florida trying to get their hands on the source code to the breathalyzer that deemed them intoxicated may have been on to something, as the Minnesota Supreme Court has now granted just that to a defendant currently facing DUI charges in an unrelated case. According to CNET, the court ruled that CMI, makers of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, must turn the breathalyzer's source code over to the defense attorneys, who said they needed it because "for all we know, it's a random number generator." Apparently, the case wound up focusing largely on whether the source code was actually owned by CMI or by the state, with the court ultimately siding with the latter camp, although not without a good deal of dispute. No word on a next move from either party, but we have a sneaking suspicion that it won't be too long before someone starts lobbying for the code to go open source.

It's a damn good argument. Why shouldn't the accused be able to scrutinize the source code of an electronic device that is essentially convicting him of a crime? Especially, when it's known that:

The request may actually have some merit, as Kentucky-based CMI, who manufactures the devices in question, has been accused of making uncertified changes to the machines, and has had to issue at least one recall in the past due to faulty software.

Labels: etc