The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Kevin G. Rhoads"
Subject: Re: Defeating Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks
References: <3E160F0D.B23A8BE5@sympatico.ca> <3E15ED10.firstname.lastname@example.org> <9zoR9.6018$Sa3.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 13:01:26 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust20.tnt2.andover.ma.da.uu.net 220.127.116.11
>Yes, I assume these breathalyzers have a reasonable treshold,
>before signaling a 'positive'.
The main trouble with most breathalyzers is falsely reacting
to things other than alcohol. It is much like the early drug
tests, anyone who had a poppy-seed bagel for breakfast
test positive for heroin use. Although the general drug
screening tests now do not falsely react to edible poppy
seeds, the more sensitive tests can still come up with
Trouble is the laws are written assuming the test is
infallible. SO one false positive and you are guilty
no chance to prove innocence.
I would *almost* rather that, at the scene of the accident,
you were given a chance to run while the investigating
officer shot at you. You make thirty yards and you
are innocent. Seems to me that it has a better chance
of working right.
Kevin G. Rhoads, Ph.D. (Linearity is a convenient fiction.)
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup