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.
This will make for a nice backlog in the courts. Although an interesting defence none the less. :-)
American traffic magistrates (at least in WA) would not even understand what an "algorithm" is. They will just see another glib speeder trying to scam the county out of $162.
(Warning for visitors: WA has one of the most zealous state highway patrol forces in the nation. Just don't exceed 10 over the limit here.)
and you don't get caught...
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.
.
I live in South Australia (thats the name of the state, they werent that original when the pohms came here :)
Anyway, we now have speed cameras on traffic light intersections and any random car parked on the side of the road *could* be a speed camera.
In Victoria (where Melbourne is), they are even more tough. As soon as I cross the border to Vic, I don't speed at all.
So the answer is "yes", they are very very trigger happy and in a lot of cases, there was no trigger, just an automated photo.
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
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.
Just to make it clear, this guy didn't prove something was flawed in their system, so much as the courts didn't bother to find an expert witness.
Officer: Please sign and initial box A, put your phone number and address in box B, please confirm and write in this 32-digit md5 hash in boxes C and D...
Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future? Holy shit!
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?
Video Production Support
Heisenberg was driving down the Autobahn whereupon he was pulled over by a policeman. The policeman asked, "Do you know how fast you were going back there?
Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know where I am."
The MD5 of course needs salt, otherwise anyone could self-sign their own stuff.
I live in Victoria, Australia (the state Melbourne is in) -- these refer to cameras in New South Wales (the state Sydney is in). There's been a rather strong backlash against speed cameras here; the margin has been lowered to 3kph. If you do exceed the speed limit by more than 25 kph, you lose your license for a month; more than 35 kph is six months; more than 45 kph is twelve months. The fines are harsh: $131 (Australian) for less than 10kph; $210 for less than 25 kph; $278 for less than 35kph; $377 for less than 45 kph; and $451 for more than 45 kph.
There have been cases of cars being clocked at speeds greater than they are physically capable of doing, and a great brou-ha-ha about how travelling "five kph above the speed limit" doubles your risk of crashing (with some people extrapolating that to an exponential curve). (For the record: the research is five kph above the prevailing speed of the traffic, and it's not exponential.)
If speed camera evidence is deemed untrustworthy, you can see a large chunk of government revenue fly out the window; they'll be onto it as fast as they can get their snouts out of the pork barrel.
Slightly off topic, but one of my favorite jokes...
So there was this guy driving through town one day, he was going about 100 in a 35, he crosses over a bridge and not too far past the end of it he sees the familiar blinking lights behind him and pulls over. The police officer comes up to the window and asks him where he's trying to get in such a hurry, and the guy says he's late for work.
The cop says "what job do you have that you have to get to so urgently?" and the guy says "I'm a Rectum Stretcher"
The cop looks a little funny at the guy and says "A Rectum Stretcher? What does a a Rectum Stretcher do?"
The guy says "well, first you start with a finger or two, work you way up to a fist, and keep going until it's six feet wide"
The cop looks absolutely amazed and says "Well, what do you do with a six foot asshole?" and the man replies
"You give him a radar gun and stick him at the end of a bridge".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/motorist-wins
I.e., it wasn't thrown out because MD5 is suspect; it was thrown out because the government couldn't find an expert witness to be cross-examined, for some reason we don't know. In fact, I'd read that statement as meaning that the magistrate wanted to examine the entirety of speed camera security, not just MD5.
That part of the story is just a lawyer's opinion, not a fact. "Successfully", in the context of the previous quote, just means that his argument was unopposed in court.
My understanding is that it is easy to generate multiple messages that have the same MD5 hash, but only if you get to choose both messages. It's still very hard (i.e., an infeasibly large number of CPU cycles for most of us) to generate data that yields the same MD5 hash as some other, arbitrary document.
It all sounds to me more like a case of blinding a magistrate with science, than some kind of victory for common sense. (Well, lawyers are involved, so commonsense isn't relevant, anyway.)
OK, I'm partially responsible for people seeing applied attack against MD5, so I'll comment for a second.
.md5 file as well. (Files on multiple servers are a little different, because you can go elsewhere to see the deviating MD5 hash.)
Basically, in 2004 Xiaoyun Wang released two different files with the same MD5 hash. This has been predicted since around 1996, when Hans Dobbertin showed the hash was broken -- but it took a while for the actual attack to show up.
Alot of people said there were _no_ applied uses. Not true. For instance, the following two pages have the same hash:
Lockheed Martin
Boeing
What's important to realize about the above content is that both web pages are included in both links; the difference between the source files (which MD5 is blind to) is just used to determine which page is displayed. What that means is that, for forensic purposes, it's trivial to rule out the best known attack against MD5 -- just look at the content being hashed.
Thats not to say we should keep using MD5. It's broken, we need to move on. But attempts to claim that MD5 is broken, so we have no idea of any link between hashed content and real material -- that's just ridiculous. We have plenty of idea, especially with human-guided forensic operations.
That being said -- if you can doctor a photo, you can doctor a hash. This is one of the things that makes files hosted on a single server w/ MD5 hashes "verifying" them a little silly...if you can alter the file, you can alter the
I submitted and got rejected, and I thought if this wasn't a /. story nothing was.
My question is how long before this sort of defence gets used against evidence in the form of video surveilence in general? How long before a bank robber can argue that the bank's security camera footage isn't secure? Or is this simply a classic case of a judge that does not understand, and a roads and traffic authority too apathetic and sure of itself to provide what's needed for the correct judgement?
I have no love of the RTA. In NSW it's now 3 points off your license for going over the speed limit by a single kilometer/hour, and 6 points for the same if it's a long weekend or holiday period. So basically you can now lose your license for doing 1 kilometer over the limit twice over a 3 year period.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Speed cameras in Perth (West Coast for the punters) are a real bitch. I hear these contraptions pay for themselves within a week of indiscriminately snapping drivers going just 4-5km/h over the speed limit. That probably sounds reasonable in built up areas where you the speed limit is 40km/h (during school hours), but on the open road where 110km/h is legal, you're better off flicking on the cruise control to avoid the boys in blue. Pre-cameras, the cops used to book you for in excess of 9km/h in the country - at least then there was some logical wiggle room, not to mention it wasn't some impersonal surprise money earner turning up in your mail one day.
The extraordinary thing is that around the burbs, often I have to put my foot on the brake going down small hills just to ensure I don't edge over the limit. Perhaps sales of brake pads and cruise control equipment have increased substantially since the introduction of these fuckers. Both my parents have received speeding fines in the last few years, having gone for over forty years with a clean record.
As an aside, a few years back, one chap was flashed by the camera as he drove by and promptly responded by swerving into the offending machine, taking it out all together. Unfortunately, these cameras have a bunch of wire connected to a nearby van, which stores all the data. The cops simply lifted the last photo taken and arrested the guy. Though a tad rash in his response, I still consider him a legend.
I just like to drive so fast that the cameras see me as a blur.
That's why I want the government monitoring every keystroke I type on the internets. If you're doing nothing questionable, you have nothing to fear, right? Protect the children!
No one should be falling for scams like this in 2005. Want to make the roads safer, all you have to do is require a driving test that couldn't be aced by the average 8 year old. Hard as it is to believe, the guys setting up covert surveillance around you do not have your best interests at heart... not when their budgets and revenue streams are in question.
The real concern is when an institution supposed to be dedicated to the public good becomes parasitic on it, to perpetuate itself. Usually that's when the platitudes about protecting the children and ensuring your safety start showing up, and anyone with a brain should recognize them for what they are: bullshit. In the last 10 years, I've been hit three times by "trigger-happy" cops or their surveillance programs for absurd offences that just happen to require cash payments, to them; I've NEVER been hit by someone speeding.
They:s /index.html
-post on the website the location of all fixed and mobile speed cameras http://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au/speedcamera
-have big signs saying "RED LIGHT AND SPEED CAMERA AHEAD" for fixed cameras
If you get nabbed with those conditions, you deserve your ticket.
In the UK the deployment of speed cameras is at the discretion of the chief constable (the boss) of the local constabulary (usually with the jurisdiction of the county they are situated in). Interesting one or two counties in the UK don't have speed cameras. Even more interesting is that in the last set of figures, those counties without them actually saw a drop in injuries and fatalities whereas those with saw a rise.
The thing about speed limits and cameras is that they are set an arbitrary value which, on average, appears to suit the road. But it's like seat belts, there are times when wearing one is worse than not wearing one but on average its better to wear one. My particular bug-bear is speeds on motorways. A nice sunny Sunday morning when the road is empty 100mph is not dangerous. 50mph in the fog in rush hour is. Speed cameras don't generally account for that. Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills.
There is one section of one motorway in the UK that has it right. A section of the M25 has adjusting speed limits and cameras to suit. I would like to see them on all motorways, moving from 30mph at the lower end to 100mph at the upper end. (Why 100 because that's the top speed of some small cars and having cars with differing speeds is also dangerous).
Exactly. MD5 alone can't prove "integrity" in the context of security or privacy. It's usually used to ensure that information wasn't accidentally changed or corrupted during a communication error. If someone can modify an image, he can easily find the MD5 hash and update it to reflect the new image. If you need to make sure that your data hasn't been intentionally tampered with, you have to encrypt the hash using a digital signature mechanism. Using simple MD5 works to detect when your transmission or storage systems are bad, but that's it.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
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
That's why there are so many penguin stories. It is to keep the Antarctican quota!
Just so you know it's pomes, as in Prisoners Of Mother England.
When expanding the acronymn to an Englishman you always get a reply "but hey you're the prisoners!", at which point it's customary to point out that they're still stuck there.
__Adult funny clips updated!
A constant barrage of government propoganda asserting that speed cameras are perfectly reliable has dulled peoples outrage of the fact that "blackbox" style machines are generating a massive amount of money for state governments.
There has been major incidents where;
1. In victoria many cameras were proven to be faulty, showing trucks, busses and old beat up cars doing absolutely rediculous speeds.
2. Just now 180 speed cameras in Queensland have been withdrawn, because they are faulty.
3. Speed camera operators have been shown regularly ignoring the usage guidelines and parking in spots that will provide improper results, near signs, suburban areas where there a metal garage doors in the line of sight of the radar, on corners, etc.
How many people have lost their licenses because of faulty cameras, or been hit with massive fines? (in NSW it's $1400 for 40km/h over the limit). I mean if you're a young mail (under 30) you wouldn't have a hope in hell of disputing one of these, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom.
As another poster mentioned many states have these operations outsourced to private companies, private companies with profit as a motive to fine people. I would enjoy hearing the rabid free marketeers argue that that having a private company with little oversite and no accountability to the average person is superior in this case.
Finally for some fun reading, it does read a bit "there out to get us", but the information and statistics seem reasonable. Showing that speed cameras have done very close to nothing in Australia to prevent road deaths.
And most of them are really well sign posted with (normally at least 2) big signs before them saying "Speed camera ahead" and afterwards a big sign pointing out that your speed was just checked.
So if you get caught speeding by one of those cameras then you're an idiot.
Actually, I kind of like the idea that enforcement of the law can be, in some circumstances at least, automated. There would be very few cases where speeding can be justified and, assuming that all equipment is working properly, it's a binary test: either you were over the speed limit or you weren't. There's not a lot of grey area there. I know a lot of people complain about them with arguments about revenue raising, but I have no problems with them whatsoever.
Let's assume this is the protocol:
- 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)
- 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: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/motorist-wins
A "Current Affair" can be more accurately described as a "That guy's a welfare cheat, therefore all people on welfare are cheats"-type of infotainment show. I am more concerned at the lack of action from the RTA than the possibility that a precedent has or has not been set. Oh - The ABC reports on the issue, it must be true. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s14344 78.htm
-----
I haven't been caught by a speed camera since I sold my car.
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.
You get the above nonsense from whingers every time this issue comes up. You only have to make a casual observation of the roads to realize that there are a substantial number of people driving too fast in *inexcusable* situations.
Just two weeks ago I was first on the scene when a dickhead drove his BMW into a telephone poll. It was in a residential street street on a sharp corner and he was driving like it was the Le Manns. I was just about to walk down that street with some friends when a telephone call held us up. We heard him speeding down the road and then the screech of tires as he lost it on the corner. Lucky for him his airbag saved his life. However he wiped out 50m of sidewalk ( lucky nobody was walking there), crossed to the wrong side of the rode before crashing ( lucky there was no oncoming traffic ) Destroyed a wooden fence ( lucky there was nobody behind it ).
The first thing I felt like doing after I saw he was ok was hauling him out of the car and kicking his arse or possibly putting his head in the door and slamming it shut a few times.
Please people, get some perspective before you all start shitting yourself with this libertarian nonsense.
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
Let's face it. Everybody speeds - even those idiots who say "police in WA enforce laws" and "speed kills".
We're all from Democracy's (except for the Americans where the corporations like the RIAA/MPAA/Disney/Sony make the laws) so if the norm is to speed, then surely we should just vote to have the limits raised?
I know there's *supposed* to be a scientific basis for the limits being what they are, but hey they've been calculated by civil servants, and lets face it, if you're hit by a car doing 65mph, being hit at 90mph isn't going to make much difference to you.
If the speed limit on a motorway/freeway was 90mph, then tha majority of us would no longer be speeding.
Think about it - you could instantly reduce the speeding figures - and simultaeneously bankrupt the private companies that put cameras around, or the insurance companies that subsidise them.
Hey we could even cut taxes by firing all the traffic cops - simultaneously putting a lot of donut companies out of business.
Anyway, can't hang around here all day, I'm off to read an article about how its been proven that speed cameras increase accident rates.
#include <sig.h>
Apparently, including the lawyer.
And perhaps not including the judge.
The designers probably just included the MD5 just to scare the defendant. Whether or not that was their intent, they've proven themselves unqualified to be building these.
The red herring of the vulnerabilities aside, the only way you could really make a non-reputable speed camera work is to have the speedometer constantly broadcast the speed and a public key permanently assigned to the car (or perhaps the driver or the license plate?), and the camera would have to record the radar speed and the license plate (and the car, just to be sure) and hash all of it with the camera's private key, and hash it all again with the defendant's public key.
But that kind of gives the lie to the whole project, because the defendant would have to produce his private key to prove that the photos are not faked.
Ergo, this is requiring the defendant to testify against himself.
I had an interesting happenstance once. I was in the military, taking a fellow soldier to his boy scout troop for their weekly meeting. I came upon a 4 way stop with 5 cars stopped ahead of me. I stopped also. Some nut went by us all, ran the stop sign and sped on. Guess who got the ticket for speeding? The MPs were on a hill, a 1/4 mile away taking those radar shots from the side. None of this works as such nor is it accurate. I got the book throwed at me by the commander who was convinced I needed to be made an example. Eye witness or no, nothing was allowed in my defense. Fortunately for me, the first sargent talked the the eye witness. I was put on special duty somewhere out of sight for two weeks. When I came back, the commander had been transferred, my fines, reduction of rank, and all paperwork was mysteriously lost. To this day I have no faith in radar, as it is up to the officer as to just how honest radar is.
However, because the designers went the extra mile and added some security - some goose can come along later and say "A ha! Your product is defective because it uses a security model that's not effective".
Other great examples:
Imho, this person should have to either proove that it's been tampered, or proove that there was at least motive from someone to tamper it. Evidence againt him: theres a photo of him speeding. Evidence for him: none - just the possibility that said photo was faked.
what a load of bollocks
Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.
Where is this "Western Australia" place? Is that in the Valley?
Argh!
That's not insightful! That's ridiculous!
Speed limits are there for safety reasons.
Motorways are designed for high-speed transit, with shallow curves, sweeping inlets and outlets and long-distance signage. You can make some sort of case there, although I'd say that people need to be better drivers here in Australia.
I live in Melbourne, home of the angry bastard talking on his mobile while turning corners in his 4WD with the pedestrian-killer bullbar. These fools can barely cope with the speed limits we have now.
Streets in most cities can't cope with people driving much past the speed limit. People need to slow and stop all the time, to turn corners, to give way, to slow for the person ahead who's also turning, that sort of thing.
The issue with revenue raising is actually bigger than you think. Once allowed to make serious money off tickets the entire mood of the department changes. The state patrol here got in trouble because they where not allowed to leave once they had pulled somebody over until a ticket had been issued. So if somebody 300 yards down the road started shooting they would get introuble if they didn't ticket the offender.
Add to that the "vauge" traffic laws and often people being ticketed just didn't have a clue what the law was at that time. In Salt Lake City it is common to only have one or two speed limit signs over a streach of a mile or two. Whats worse is that often the speed limit changes and no sign is put up. Where Fourth South turns into Foothill the speed limit changes and there is no sign. Where Foothill becomes I214 the speed goes from 40 to 65 with a minimum of 45. There is no sign for almost an 1/8 of a mile to notify drivers of this.
The worst abuse of "revinue collecting" is the highway cities in Idaho. The speed limit goes from 55 to 25 anytime you enter city limits and they make it a point to put bushes infront of the signs. Instand $130 ticket right there. Worst case is the sign going into Cascade. It got knocked over a few years back and it took a year and a half to fix.
No, they're not. They're there to raise money. In fact, every supposedly "criminal" activity that is punished by a fine, as opposed to actual jail time, is a crime solely because punishing people for it serves to fill the coffers of the state.
In the case of speed limits, traffic engineers have known for quite a while that the safest speed limit for a given road is the 85-percentile speed - the speed that 85% of the traffic travels on that road. It's not speed that kills, it's speed differential, and having slow drivers on fast roads is just as dangerous, if not more, than having fast drivers on slow roads. Setting speed limits to arbitrarily low values will result in a small percentage of drivers obeying them, and those drivers will present a significant hazard to people traveling at reasonable speeds for that road.
The fact is that raising or lowering speed limits has very little to do with how fast traffic moves. Here, look:
The time to worry about traffic safety is when you're designing and building the road, not when you feel like monkeying around with speed limits. If you see a speed limit set lower than the 85% percentile speed, it's set that way so that the state can make money, not to make anyone safer.
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.
I see people go through the most insane and convoluted justifications for why something preventing them from speeding is bad.
Why on earth just not speed? I've never gotten a ticket in my life or worried about "sneaky cops" or "rigged cameras". I use the simple expedient of not speeding. It's not that big a deal. If you're doing 85 mph in a 70 zone, for example, you're getting there 21% faster -- big deal. In exchange, you risk the lives and property of others, your own life and property (which, I guess, is up to you to do if you want), and have to worry about speed traps constantly.
I know, I know. You're a "skilled driver", and the speed doesn't affect you at all. Everyone's a "skilled driver" in their own perception. When you hit someone, it still jacks the impact damage way up.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
They are now!!! Wall Street Journal Aug 3 reported that the police now have orders to kill suspects, just like the UK!! the list of things to suspect is ridiculous and can be exhibeted by many people. not to mention that none of these people saw "speeed" and have learned what a dead mans trigger is (it goes OFF (ie boom) when the person lets go or dies). they also dont think terrorists are smart enough to send someone ahead of them into a train station to see if it is one where ober meisters are going through peoples personal effects (meanwhile they can pack a laptop and the cops would let them on through.. or wrap it as a postal package... would you believe they are looking for "wires sticking out), chipping away at our rights to keep a few people safe. 70 years ago a few million people thought those same rights were worth dying for. now only a few understand that what those died for, they just gave away. shame.
I have a friend that has gotten out of each of his tickets from cameras. When he shows up to court - as his right - he asks to face his accuser. The court is unable to do this - so case is dismissed. He is a former member of law enforcement and knew the loop hole...and subsequently abused it. I do not know if he is still doing this, but I do remember him doing this many times over...I think more just to prove a point to the courts, and to be an ass
Just taking it one beer at a time...
On Massachusetts highways, I find that if I drive less than 75mph, I don't keep up with the flow of traffic. Somehow the traffic flow finds its own safe speed, which is definitely not 55 (or 65).
It helps that the police don't enforce the limit too strictly; I drove 80mph past troopers chilling in speed traps many times, and they just didn't care. I hope they are waiting for the assholes that tailgate and weave at 110mph.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
It's an invasion of my privacy.
You sir, are a crack head. Your licence plate is publicly visible. The entire point of licence plates is to be publicly visible to everyone to uniquely identify your car. Your licence plate isn't private.
There are a lot of things wrong with traffic cameras, but privacy isn't one of them.
Web Design Tips
One key role of government is to "make people feel safe". People demand this, and it will never change. Sure, these searches do little to actually make people safe, but complaining about that is missing the entire point, as they do make most people *feel* safer. That's how democracy works - when most people want something they get it. It's still the least bad system.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well, duh. It's Florida, you're supposed to enforce justice yourself by shooting back.
No, that's not quite how self-defense law works down here, and the sheriff's office most definitely could prosecute the assailant for firing into an occupied vehicle, discharging a firearm within city limits, and a host of other offenses. They did have an eyewitness to the shooting, plus there is going to be evidence inside the vehicle that a firearm was discharged.
I also like the comment "so long as America keeps passing dumb laws like that" - as if Washington D.C.'s Draconian gun laws have made the first bit of difference there.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
One problem you run into is that this sort of corruption is present in any large organization.
.3-.4%. You'd have a better chance going after welfare fraud.
But the military have lost on paper something like 16 billion dollars in the past 10 years. Some of that has been from abuse of DoD credit cards, some probably got swiped, some probably just got lost in the paper shuffle.
That's 1.6 Billion out of 400-500 billion(depending on how you figure it) discretionary spending? Translation:
And the waste is, in many ways, an estimate. It costs money to catch them, money to prosecute, money to collect(which you might not be able to do).
Trust me. Whenever possible, we get the money back when fraud is caught.
I don't read AC A human right