All speed camera fines in doubt - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: All speed camera fines in doubt

  1. #11
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Zen and I live in speeding ticket mecca. And we don't even use the cameras. But I agree the MD5 issue is horse balls. Even though I want the systems taken offline.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  2. #12
    T̙͓̞̣̯ͦͭͅͅȂͧͭͧ̏̈͏̖̖Z̿ ͆̎̄
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,171
    Originally posted here by jinxy
    I read recently that in some areas where speed camara usage has risen, so has the instance of road death. In areas with little or no camara installation, road death has actualy decreased.
    Hi jinxy,

    I've heard similiar cases...probably because drivers are more aware of the cameras and instead of it causing them to be more careful it actually distracts them causing a higher accident rate.

    Eg

  3. #13
    Senior Member IKnowNot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    792
    Looks more like a failure of the prosecution to get their act together rather than the judge making a decision on the validity of MD5.
    Actually the judge DID make a decision. That is my point. He made the decision to accept what argument(s) the Defense used. He then gave the Prosecution time to respond to the Defense's claims.

    However, was that argument
    that the photos can be altered
    and/or
    that there was opportunity for the photos to be altered

    A lot of things come into play here, not the least of which could be the necessity for the RTA to divulge publicly their network setup used for the cameras ( which they may not want to do. )

    Again, if the setup used was similar to the example I gave and the RTA ( and the vendors ) relied solely on the MD5 to verify the photos then they have a problem because of all the possible avenues of attack. The Prosecution would then have to find “experts” to say what has been said here, that the level of alterations necessary could not have been made ( and I don't know ) and still produce the same hash.

    But, ( back to the chain-of-custody thing, ) if the systems are locked down tight and they can ( beyond reasonable doubt ) prove that no one could have gained access to make any alterations then the MD5 issue is irrelevant. Now they would have to bring in their admins, etc. to verify the integrity of their systems and prove the “chain-of-custody.”

    Personally, I am glad the legislators here banned the use of unmanned cameras such as this. But what about the “E-ZPass“ that not only records your toll, but the exact time. Since they know the distance between the sensors can they use distance/time to calculate your speed. Last I heard, Officially, they say they don't.
    " And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

  4. #14
    AO Senior Cow-beller
    Moderator
    zencoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Mountain standard tribe.
    Posts
    1,177
    Well, I can't speak about EZPass. I think it would be political suicide to try and charge people for that. A skilled defense attorney could argue a lot of things, including calling into question the accuracy of the EZ-Pass system...and then he'll say if the accuracy of the clocks is in question, how can we be certain that the accounting system is accurate and isn't ripping off hard working truckers?

    No, the ruling mentions RTA claimed they couldn't find an expert. That falls one of a few ways:
    1. They were unable to find an expert on the subject of MD5 hash algorithm mathematics and accuracy.
    2. They were unable to find an expert on the subject who would testify to the accuracy and be able to defend it against the academic work out of China showing MD5 collisions are possible.
    3. They chose not to fight this in court, and let it go

    It's typical. This sort of standard has been used again and again...it's case law. The term is "precedent". That is why digital photo's were not admissable for a long time; there was no way to guaruntee they hadn't been altered.

    It's that 'reasonable doubt' standard. Ah, it pisses me off. Time to get inebriated.
    "Data is not necessarily information. Information does not necessarily lead to knowledge. And knowledge is not always sufficient to discover truth and breed wisdom." --Spaf
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
    "...people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

  5. #15
    Senior Member IKnowNot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    792
    This sort of standard has been used again and again...it's case law. The term is "precedent".
    Again, I don't know about there, but a case such as this isn't really “ case law”.

    I'm sure this defense will be used again since it worked. But the courts are not bound by this decision and may rule the way they wish.

    Remember, this was a local court. Case law is usually set by higher courts.

    Another judge may not accept the same arguments offered by the defense this judge allowed, which were ...?
    " And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides