Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Once upon a time
...there was a guy. His name was Bruce, and he knew a thing or three about security. One of the things he said was that just because something was secret, doesn't mean it's secure, and just because something's secure doesn't mean it has to be kept under layer after layer of secrecy. In fact, he said that better than I can.
Last time I checked, Mr. Schneier was in no danger of being seriously listened to by The Man. All the things that really need to be kept safe, like voting trails or social security information, are still kept under big, heavy wraps by the guv'mint and there is remarkably little chance of you legally finding out how they're stored or encrypted or anything like that.
In Florida, however, it's starting to be shown that this sort of attitude may not be a good thing. Here's how it is: Bob may have gone drinking, then Bob goes driving, then Bob gets busted. Whether he was in fact drinking, and whether he was rightfully busted is irrelevant. Bob shows up in court, and being the informed citizen he is, gets the idea that maybe if he knew how the breathalyzer that busted him worked, he could defend himself better. The company that makes the breathalyzers, however, doesn't think this is so good. They consider the way that the programs that run their breath machines to be a trade secret, and don't want other folk to know about it. The State of Florida, unable to deliver this key bit of information at the request of the defendant, then dismisses the case.
So here's the question to be asked: is it better to let some companies try to make money off of the stupid and irresponsible actions of others, or should we try to make a more transparent judicial system that allows people to find out just how they got caught? A detective needs to state his or her case about how the clues point to the suspect, and as far as I see it, a breathalyzer is just a computerised detective. Friends of mine have vented to me about those commercials you hear on the radio for legal defense against DUI charges and how much it pisses them off that these no-good scumbag lawyers are putting alcoholics behind the wheel, and to an extent I agree. Drunk driving is not good. I don't care if you down a few at the pub and then go crash into a tree and die--you deserved it--but odds are you're more likely to crash into another car than into a tree, and that puts other, less dumb folk in danger. However, those no-good lawyers have a point: a breathalyzer can be wrong, and the only way to make them better is to be able to take a look at them and see how they work.
I wonder who will be the first anti-DUI group to point at these contractors and say "Your trade secrets cost lives." ¶ 6:55 p.m.
...there was a guy. His name was Bruce, and he knew a thing or three about security. One of the things he said was that just because something was secret, doesn't mean it's secure, and just because something's secure doesn't mean it has to be kept under layer after layer of secrecy. In fact, he said that better than I can.
Last time I checked, Mr. Schneier was in no danger of being seriously listened to by The Man. All the things that really need to be kept safe, like voting trails or social security information, are still kept under big, heavy wraps by the guv'mint and there is remarkably little chance of you legally finding out how they're stored or encrypted or anything like that.
In Florida, however, it's starting to be shown that this sort of attitude may not be a good thing. Here's how it is: Bob may have gone drinking, then Bob goes driving, then Bob gets busted. Whether he was in fact drinking, and whether he was rightfully busted is irrelevant. Bob shows up in court, and being the informed citizen he is, gets the idea that maybe if he knew how the breathalyzer that busted him worked, he could defend himself better. The company that makes the breathalyzers, however, doesn't think this is so good. They consider the way that the programs that run their breath machines to be a trade secret, and don't want other folk to know about it. The State of Florida, unable to deliver this key bit of information at the request of the defendant, then dismisses the case.
So here's the question to be asked: is it better to let some companies try to make money off of the stupid and irresponsible actions of others, or should we try to make a more transparent judicial system that allows people to find out just how they got caught? A detective needs to state his or her case about how the clues point to the suspect, and as far as I see it, a breathalyzer is just a computerised detective. Friends of mine have vented to me about those commercials you hear on the radio for legal defense against DUI charges and how much it pisses them off that these no-good scumbag lawyers are putting alcoholics behind the wheel, and to an extent I agree. Drunk driving is not good. I don't care if you down a few at the pub and then go crash into a tree and die--you deserved it--but odds are you're more likely to crash into another car than into a tree, and that puts other, less dumb folk in danger. However, those no-good lawyers have a point: a breathalyzer can be wrong, and the only way to make them better is to be able to take a look at them and see how they work.
I wonder who will be the first anti-DUI group to point at these contractors and say "Your trade secrets cost lives." ¶ 6:55 p.m.
