Slashdot Mirror


Aussie Speed Cameras in Doubt Because of MD5

An anonymous reader writes "A speeding case has been thrown out in Australia after the Roads and Traffic Authority admitted that it could not prove the integrity of speed-camera photos. 'The case revolved around the integrity of a mathematical MD5 algorithm published on each picture and used as a security measure to prove pictures have not been doctored after they have been taken.'" I wonder if Australian police are as (radar gun) trigger happy as they are in certain parts of the U.S.

26 of 1,004 comments (clear)

  1. Don't speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and you don't get caught...

    1. Re:Don't speed by justzisguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how often does this exactly happen? When the ambulance comes from behind, they can't force you to speed. Your speeding still breaks the spirit as well as the letter of the law. The other "examples" are nice stretches. What is wrong with admitting you were speeding because you wanted to and face the music???

  2. loophole? by ciscoguy01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That sounds like a loophole. However I am not in favor of automated law enforcement, I like to face my accuser.

    Many of those red light tickets were dismissed in the US for various reasons, some technical, some through loopholes, and some through plain old dishonesty in the ticket system operator. They had lowered the yellow light timing below legal standards to make more money. Outrageous if you ask me.

    Law enforcement is supposed to be run by government employees, who have no axe to grind and nothing to gain by dishonesty. I like it like that.

    --
    .
    1. Re:loophole? by aaronl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, that's likely backlash from having over 50% of your income taken by the government. That's what it adds up to when you total all the taxes, registrations, license fees, regulatory fees, etc. Since that is already unacceptably high, demanding more money is outright ludicrous.

      You fix is "make the Federal huge huge huge", when the fix really is "slash the Federal, reduce overall costs", now the States and local government can get more revenue without the Federal taking it all. The Federal screwed up education, proved that social programs don't work (at least not at the Federal level), made the tax situation horrible, and a lot more.

      It's very cute that you think it's proper to take money from the military to give it to social services and police. That will not only not work, but they don't have much to do with each other. They're handled on different levels of government, as they should be, and as they are supposed to be according to the Constitution.

      Social services *should* be done on a more reasonable level of government, so that you aren't forced, against your will, to pay for them. Like the way it was done *before* FDR, when we weren't running trillions of dollars in Federal debt.

      Also, the Federal don't do police. They have agencies of dubious value that are kind of similar to police, but aren't. Police are mostly a local government thing. If the Federal didn't take nearly all the money and then use it to control local government, this wouldn't be a problem. Additionally, police don't like doing speed traps; it sucks as a job. Of course, they don't set the speed limits - the municipality or State does - so they don't get to decide to set reasonable speeds. That fancy assed radar/laser gun isn't on the "desired new toy" list for most of them, either. They often prefer the older one because when your radar detector goes off, *you slow down*.

      Education is local government, too. Once the Federal got involved it went to hell. Did you ever notice how the majority of school funding comes straight from local revenue into local government? That's because the Federal doesn't do it.

      Emergency services are local/state government, with the exception of Federal agencies like FEMA. Most of the cost is not Federal, however. There is also some at the State level.

      Science should properly be done outside the government. However, this is the first thing you mention that might be justifiable as something to be more heavily funded. I would prefer for science to be done in schools, by private individuals, and by private companies, but that just isn't happening anymore.

      The lesson is keep your government local. Concentration of power is bad, and history agrees with me (as does the Constitution). Perhaps you noticed that as Federal power increased, personal freedom decreased? Cut most of the Federal and some of the States and you end up with a lot more services, a lot more freedom, and a lot more control over your government. Then you have adequate police and fire protection, well funded schools and libraries, and good condition roads.

      People *are* willing to put in to the system. They just aren't willing to put into *your* system, and don't really like having their money confiscated to have things forced down their throats.

  3. My experiance with speed cameras by Frogbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've experianced speed cameras in both Queensland and Victoria and I have to say that by far Melbourne is the dodgiest of the lot. They claim that the cameras are there to save lives however they are little more then revenue raisers.

    Melbournians are subjected to hidden cameras looking over overtaking lanes. The cameras are privatised so people get paid more the more cars they catch. The situation there is terrible.

    Queensland is somewhat better because police are required to have a sign out saying that there are speed cameras in use, however this sign is usually conveniently placed behind a bush or behind the car with the camera in it. Queensland is also better off because the police do not rely so heavily on the revenue that their cameras drum up, it seems at times the only thing paying for Melbournes police is speeding offiences.

    One thing is certain, these cameras do not save any lives. I remember clearly once in high school a Policeman came to give a talk on vehicle safety he showed us a big graph with a stedily declining death rate over the years, he pointed out the huge drop after the introduction of seat bealts, then one after they banned drink driving, and a smaller drop after the introduction of airbags. My hand immediently shot up and I asked him when speed cameras were introduced, my teachers just laughed and he never answered the question.

    1. Re:My experiance with speed cameras by radja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      just don't speed. it's not that hard. speeding causes an unnecessary amount of exhaust fumes, which costs lives. just don't, there is no excuse to speed.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    2. Re:My experiance with speed cameras by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      just don't speed. it's not that hard. speeding causes an unnecessary amount of exhaust fumes, which costs lives. just don't, there is no excuse to speed.

      Yes there is.

      1. You've got a huge mac truck on your tail that wants to go faster and won't stop for your little toyota.
      2. You've got a huge SUV on your tail that wants to go faster that won't stop for your little toyota
      3. Your driving down a huge mountain and your brakes gave out because you were a dumb ass and thought it was a good idea to go exactly the speed limit.

      Look, i'm not going to justifify going unsafe speeds... I've done it enough in my life but not going to touch that. No excuse for that.

      I am going to touch bases on the fact that keeping with trafic flow results in less accidents. I tried going the speedlimit in many places, thinking I was doing my part for the enviroment and saftey... and I get rear ended by everyone and their neighbor... so I have a choice... either go a little bit faster and reduce the number of accidents I have, or continue blindly following the signs and get in the hospital... again.

      BTW... going different speeds, accelerating and decelerating cause an unneccessary amount of exhost fumes... so do automatic transmitions. Going one consistant speed for as long as possible yields the best benifit in fuel consumotion and the least amount of fume production.

      In my life as a driver, I have NEVER been in an accident going over the speed limit keeping with trafic flow and being a generally safe driver. I have gotten into accidents when going the speedlimit. And now SUVs are so very popular... i'm going to keep it safe and go with traffic flow... cause it saves lives.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    3. Re:My experiance with speed cameras by horza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      just don't speed. it's not that hard. speeding causes an unnecessary amount of exhaust fumes, which costs lives. just don't, there is no excuse to speed.

      Not necessarily. Different cars have different gearing ratios hence are more efficient at different speeds. For example if the optimum fuel-efficiency speed of my car is 65mph, and I am in a 30mph limit, then staying below the speed limit is causing an unnecessary amount of exhaust fumes and costing lives.

      As for costing lives, I don't think we can claim that. Contributing factor to early deaths, trigger for various things such as asthma, maybe. More lives are probably cost by speed cameras. I've lost count of the number of cars I've seen drastically brake at the last minute when seeing a speed camera late, and either nearly swerve off the road or have the cars pile up into the back of them. People often instinctively brake just in case, even if they are not speeding. It is probably also a contributing factor to a number of deaths in that it's one thing people are looking for when driving when they should be concentrating on the road.

      Phillip.

    4. Re:My experiance with speed cameras by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Not necessarily. Different cars have different gearing ratios hence are more efficient at different speeds. For example if the optimum fuel-efficiency speed of my car is 65mph, and I am in a 30mph limit, then staying below the speed limit is causing an unnecessary amount of exhaust fumes and costing lives.



      Bogus physics here. The fuel efficiency depends on the engine RPM (where it has an optimum range)and the speed of the vehicle (more -> worse efficency). If the manufacturer says the car is "most efficient" at 65 mph, they mean that it is the best compromise between fuel efficiency and time needed to travel. If you go 30 mph while maintaining the same engine RPM by switching to the appropriate gear, then the very same care will be more fuel efficient, period.

      More lives are probably cost by speed cameras. I've lost count of the number of cars I've seen drastically brake at the last minute when seeing a speed camera late, and either nearly swerve off the road or have the cars pile up into the back of them.

      Yes, blame the camera for people who are not in control of their vehicle or keeping proper distance from the car in front of them.

  4. Re:Why MD5 by tonsofpcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that is the point of the article. They take the picture, write it and a MD5 hash, then try saying that it is official because it has a matching MD5 hash. I can make any picture with a matching MD5 hash. Even this post can have a matching MD5 hash, does the MD5 hash prove that I wrote it?

  5. Re:Fun times for all. by Zilch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dude! If are going to be going through a school zone with kiddies about (marked 40k's) at 45k's OVER THE LIMIT, (ie 85k's) then you well deserve to loose your licence for 12 months and cough up $451 bucks. I think you are getting off lightly.

    Zilch.

  6. Re:Good luck... by Shanep · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a pysics teacher (also in WA) that drives as fast as he wants. Then when he goes to court for the speeding tickets he dazzles the judge with science and calculus until the ticket gets dropped.

    Well then, if "as fast as he wants" means "much faster than the law allows", then I hope physics brings him some swift justice before he kills some innocent person who is not a complete ass.

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  7. Speeding by mcbridematt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder if Australian police are as (radar gun) trigger happy as they are in certain parts of the U.S.

    Yes.

    And I'd rather have a fine and a few points on my license than a murder conviction for running over a pedestrian at 90km/h in a 60km/h zone

  8. Re:Good luck... by karmatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the laws being enforced are themselves unreasonable, a warning is not out of order. Just because something is "the law" does not mean it's reasonable or prudent.

  9. Re:Depends on the state by karmatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Why would a state voluntarily legislate to limit its power?"

    Supposedly, the power comes from the people. It's not that the state would take it's power away, rather, it would be that the people have not yet conceeded that authority to it in the first place (by voting for, or electing people who vote for laws granting the state that power).

  10. Some info by 3l1za · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My reading of the scant info on this case is that the villain being fingered is the MD5 algorithm, not the overall protocol which used that algo.

    Let's assume this is the protocol:
    1. camera takes snap shot, uses signing key on tamper-resistant chip inside camera to sign a hash of that photo (with the time, speed, etc. concatenated onto the end of the photo before hashing)
    2. send bill to speeder (possibly including hash of picture or in some way "committing" to that particular md5sum)
    Then, the problem the bad guy has is to find another picture with that same hash value. This is a preimage attack [find another photo that outputs this hash value] and the weaknesses in MD5 were collision weaknesses: particular collisions found and an algorithm for generating collisions. But collisions are just two messages that have the same hash value, not a particular hash value of your choosing.

    If the protocol doesn't have a way to securely associate a hash with a photo (e.g. doesn't sign it), then it doesn't make a difference if you're using MD5 or SHA-1 or SHA-256, the cops can still just doctor photos at will and only produce the hashes of the doctored photos. So this line of "attack" has nothing to do with underlying cryptographic weaknesses.

    [Note also that the weaknesses in MD5 don't affect the security of HMAC-MD5]. Hell, the case should be thrown out since the defense atty had the temerity to issue this stunning (even in buzz-word-addled tech) mischaracterization:
    "People have shown it [the algorithm] has been hacked and it's open to viruses."
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/motorist-wins- case-after-maths-whizzes-break-speed-camera-code/2 005/08/10/1123353388395.html?oneclick=true

  11. Re:As usual... by karmatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point is not that you can generate multiple messages with the same hash; the point is that you can take a photo, doctor it, and plaster a new hash over the old one.

  12. Correction... by mrRay720 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WARNING! Police in Washington enforce laws... that generate a revenue stream!

    Personally I have no problem with Police enforcing laws, it's just when they go for the easy, (relatively) harmless, money-grabbing ones to the detriment of rapes, murders, assault, criminal damage, etc. that I have a problem.

    Yeah, the problem is pretty bad where I live, too. Cops whoring themselves out for speeding fines when more serious crimes go reported and with no police response for hours or days.

    F*** them.

  13. Re:Good luck... by tbigby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until he/she has a tyre blowout, or comes across an unexpected pothole in the road, or has to swerve to avoid a rabbit running across the road... at which point that extra 30mph or 50kmph could make a huge difference to the ensuing damage to the person and other people, not to mention their car. Those are things that can happen to anyone, no matter how good a driver they are.

  14. Re:Good luck... by Shanep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until he/she has a tyre blowout, or comes across an unexpected pothole in the road, or has to swerve to avoid a rabbit running across the road... at which point that extra 30mph or 50kmph could make a huge difference to the ensuing damage to the person and other people, not to mention their car. Those are things that can happen to anyone, no matter how good a driver they are.

    Yes, that reminds me of something I witnessed about 25 years ago when I was a child. On a freeway a car flew past us at high speed, minutes later we drove past to see it, upside down, with a front type blown open and bloody bodies on the ground around it. I'll never forget that.

    The World is full of people who are "better than average" in their own minds. Especially young people who think they are the next F1 champion. A while ago on TV in Australia, a current affairs type program got a bunch of hoons together to do a high performance driver training and testing. They all failed because they ALL went out too hard with something to prove. The funniest thing, was that the old guy training them, drove their own hotted up cars around the course much better and faster than the owners did.

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  15. Re:Good luck... by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, but on a four lane highway, where the most severe turn is about 30 degrees per mile, which is the 'unsafe speed'?

    55(1980's speedlimit)
    65(1990's)
    75(current)

    The road has been all of the above. Is 85 even that much of a stretch for a stable, well maintained car with good tires?

    I've driven a number of vehicles, and there are a number that I wouldn't drive past 55-65 in on any road. It could be an immaculate runway and I wouldn't go that fast. On the other hand, I've driven a few sports-cars, and they feel more in control even going 30mph faster than the delivery truck.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  16. Re:Good luck... by TFGeditor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why anybody would swerve and risk their own life and the lives of others to avoid hitting a rabbit, squirrel, cat, et al is beyond rational comprehension.

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
  17. Re:Kind of related... by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    dude, if you're measuring your fuel consumption in litres per mile, you need a new car...

    I measure mine in miles per litre...

    (cluestick for mods: HUMOUR)

    --
    And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
  18. Re:Good luck... by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disclaimer I rarely watch "current affairs" on the commercial channels as I think most of it is crap. But I did see part of the story you mentioned...

    "These hoons were humiliated. The point of the show was a challenge to the hoons to prove that they were good enough drivers to speed. They all failed."

    Dead on, but even after all that some of them still could not see a problem with thier own speeding. They were male and had the "indestructable" attitude (I suffered the same syndrome 25 yrs ago and have the scars to prove it).

    Off course we have vast highways over here where you can see a Camel 2km up the road, no traffic, no cops, no bends. Speeding is not a problem in the middle of nowhere, falling asleep and road-trains will kill you.

    Speed limits are made so that the AVERAGE driver can make a stupid mistake once in a while and live to be honked at and humiliated. If EVERY driver is driving near thier skill limit then NOBODY can make a mistake, ever!

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  19. Re:Good luck... by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about a child? Where would YOU draw the line?

    That's a ridiculous question - dogs, cats, etc. are legally property. People are not. Of course I'd feel badly running over a cat or other cuddly animal, but if it's between that and losing control of the vehicle, causing perhaps thousands of dollars in damage or worse, injuring someone, the cat doesn't get a second thought at the moment. Certainly I avoid animals on the road where possible. However, the most important part of driving is judgement, and that means knowing when you just have to suck it up and barrel over someone's pet in the road for the greater good.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  20. Re:Good luck... by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, but on a four lane highway, where the most severe turn is about 30 degrees per mile, which is the 'unsafe speed'?

    The answer is: any speed other than the one all the other vehicles are moving at.

    Numerous studies have shown that the most important factor in reducing the total number of accidents on highways is to get all of the vehicles moving at about the same speed. Driving the speed limit when everyone else is going 10 over is dangerous. Driving 10mph faster than everyone else is dangerous.

    Higher absolute speed increases the severity of injuries in case of an accident, different roadways also impose a natural maximum (though the US Interstates were mostly designed for 80mph traffic, since the speed limit was 70mph when they were constructed), and weather conditions can change things dramatically, but the most important consideration in minimizing accidents is getting all of the cars moving at close to the same speed.

    If you're the granny with cars whizzing by to the left and right, you're a hazard, even if you're going the speed limit. If you're the punk passing everyone and weaving through traffic, you're a hazard, even if your car is perfectly capable of handling the speed on that road. In both cases, it doesn't even matter how good of a driver you may or may not be... if your actions may surprise another driver, then you'll eventually cause an accident.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.