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.

Comments

Don't speed

[Anonymous Coward]

and you don't get caught...

loophole?

[ciscoguy01]

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.

Re:loophole?

[aaronl]

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.

Re:Good luck...

[tbigby]

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.

Re:Good luck...

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:Good luck...

[swillden]

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.