I blogged a few months back about the running controversy about breath testing machines used by police in drinking/driving cases.
The state of Minnesota has recently filed suit against the manufacturer of its breath testing machines.
Apart from the obvious issues over whether a criminal defendant should have a right to see the source code in the machine used to convict him/her, the suit brings out a point I hadn't thought of yet. Apparently, the state is claiming that the source code is owned by the state of Minnesota based on a contract it wrote with this manufacturer some years ago -- And therefore the manufacturer's acts are alleged to be infringement of the state's copyrights! It certainly would not surprise me to find out the contract says exactly what is alleged in the complaint, given the way the typical government contract is drafted (and the typical process whereby the company, desperate to make the sale, goes along with what the state demands). (Editor's note: I have no personal knowledge or stake in this matter!) Thus, we may not only use this new case to develop a policy on disclosure of source code in crime-testing equipment, but also to show us what really happens when those onerous work-for-hire contract terms actually come out of the drawer and get reviewed a few years later!
And, I bet this won't be limited to breath testing machines. For example, most new cars have computers on board that are connected to GPS systems and other position-spotting equipment which can be used to prove where we were (or weren't) or how fast we might have been going, etc. The manufacturers of those computers may be facing this same issue in the near future. I'm sure anybody taking five minutes could come up with a list of many other future battles over the machines that are used to convict us of crimes. (If you're willing, take a shot in the comments below on what you think the next battlegrounds might be! This is not limited to cars and how we drive them by the way. How about the cell phone hanging off of your belt right now?)
Fasten your seat belts.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Computer Made Me Do It
Not entirely on point to the committee, but I couldn't help but share the story from our local paper about the guy who got ticketed for making a left turn notwithstanding an extremely well-marked 'No Left Turn' sign (and barriers, etc.). (Scroll down a bit for the story.) His excuse? Mapquest said it was OK. My favorite line in the story? "So while digital technologies are making it easier to find your way around, there's something less newfangled that you should always bring along: Your brain."
Actually -- Not bad advice for much of what we do with our toys here in Cyberspace.
Actually -- Not bad advice for much of what we do with our toys here in Cyberspace.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Domaining Featured in the Gray Lady
From the NYT...
Props to Trademark Blog for flagging this.
Mr. Buck and other domainers profit when inexperienced Internet users type those names into their Web browsers, and once on the site click on related advertisements. In the longer term, they hope to resell their domain names for large profits to companies that want to build real businesses with those Web addresses.
Domainers have generally had a negative reputation. Domain-name trading takes little of the actual effort needed to build a business on the Web, instead relying on clicks from people who simply guess at a site’s name or are too lazy to use a search engine. In its early years, the field was dominated by offshore players and secretive, if not illegal, tactics.
Props to Trademark Blog for flagging this.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Winter Working Dinner
William Mitchell Reception
Kunz Avatar
Friday, January 25, 2008
One Laptop Per Child
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






