Hackers Rebel Against Spy Cams

Wired is running an article looking at the little ways in which Austrian technology users are striking back against surveillance. From the article: "Members of the organization worked out a way to intercept the camera images with an inexpensive, 1-GHz satellite receiver. The signal could then be descrambled using hardware designed to enhance copy-protected video as it's transferred from DVD to VHS tape. The Quintessenz activists then began figuring out how to blind the cameras with balloons, lasers and infrared devices. And, just for fun, the group created an anonymous surveillance system that uses face-recognition software to place a black stripe over the eyes of people whose images are recorded."

Comments

Re:Ha! I'd dare them to pull that crap here!

[QuantumG]

They weren't neo-nazis you freak. They were Arabs who kidnapped Israelis.

Re:Dumbass Moderators

[plaxion]

I dunno... could it have been your derogitory comment regarding 'spotting fat people'? I agree with the moderation, but now that I've seen your response to it, I think the moderator should be commended and you'll be lucky if someone doesn't mark you -1 TROLL.

Re:Huge difference with speed cameras

[dangitman]

Where is that limit set? Based on what mathmatical function, derived from what logic? Barring that, it's arbitrary.

Why does it have to be based on mathematics? It's based on the logic that the faster you go, the more damage you can cause, and the less control you have.

they are primarily based on human reaction times and driving proficiency, for the upper limit. Then they observe the road in question for the reduced limits, sometimes with a blanket lower limit for residential areas. Do you have an algorithm for the acceptable number of kids running out onto roads to be killed at a certain speed?

If I can control my vehicle 100% at 50mph or 55mph, but the arbitrary limit is 40mph, then I'm being limited below my capacities.

So what? That is better than you driving at your limits. No-one should ever drive at their limits on a public road.

Furthermore, fuel efficiency is reduced when you go faster than a certain point. So, if you go too fast, you are not only increasing risk, but hurting other (and wasting money) by increasing pollution and fuel consumption. See below:

Eventually, that road load curve catches up with us. Once the speed gets up into the 40 mph range each 1 mph increase in speed represents a significant increase in power required. Eventually, the power required increases more than the efficiency of the engine improves. At this point the mileage starts dropping... You can see that the increase in power required to go from 50 to 51 mph is much greater than to go from 2 to 3 mph.

So, for most cars, the "sweet spot" on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed.

Speeding laws are largely a source of extra revenue (and don't get me started on those ridiculous seat belt laws)

Sure, speeding laws are a source of extra revenue. But what's wrong with that? Someone needs to pay for the damage caused by speeders. And if you don't speed, you don't have to pay them. If people obeyed the law, how could they raise revenue? On the other hand - how do we get speeders to stop without paying for police to stop them?

P.S: What's so ridiculous about seatbelt laws?

Re:Huge difference with speed cameras

[dangitman]

Sorry to reply twice, but do you break the speed limits in real life, or are you just talking hypothetically?