Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma Security Expert Attacks RIAA Claims
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A group of Oklahoma University students has made a motion to vacate the ex parte order the RIAA had obtained compelling the university to turn over their names and addresses. In support of their motion was the expert witness declaration (PDF) of a computer security and forensics expert who essentially attacked the entire premise of the RIAA's lawsuit, characterizing the declaration upon which the RIAA based its motion as 'factually erroneous' and 'misleading.' Among other things he pointed out that 'An individual cannot be uniquely identified by an IP address,' and that 'Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points.' The students are represented by the same Oklahoma lawyer who recently obtained a award for $68,000-plus in attorneys fees against the RIAA in Capitol v. Foster."
"Oh SHIT ... not this guy again."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
No matter who comes out on top only the lawyers win. :/
~
;d
"Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points" Did the MAFIAA really think someone would overlook this point? Anyone with a class in Internet 101 knows that routers assign one IP address to represent whatever computers are attached to it. I'm glad their having their asanine package of BS handed right back to them.
Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
I'm wondering why it's taken other lawyers so long to realize the RIAA is ripe for fleecing with their undefendable suits. Surely the lawyer vs. lawyer guys would have figured out by now that the RIAA, with so much $$$, is ripe for plucking...
:)
I'm actually ashamed of this, BTW
Moderation in everything, including moderation.
Nitpick:
TFA says the 11 students are at Oklahoma State University (OSU), not that Other University to the south (OU).
[ Yes, I am an alumni of OSU. ]
One can only hope that if they get hit upside the head with a proverbial baseball bat often enough, perhaps they'll learn? After all, even the dumbest dog learns after a while, right? Nah, probably won't happen..
...how big is the school in question? I've been wondering recently whether the RIAA has ever gone after schools with big legal programs. Have they been avoiding a fight with students who might have a large number of friends training to be lawyers? I have visions of some professor who gets sufficiently aggravated that he assigns his entire class to bury the RIAA in legal briefs.
So what is the most likely outcome of the motion?
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
"Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points."
Yes, we all know this is true from a technical perspective. However, the RIAA is not as dumb as to ignore it. From the depositions in the Lindor case (posted earlier by NewYorkCountryLawyer) they are also relying on the fact that Kazaa (and workalikes) apparently include the local IP in the protocol. So if I'm behind my router, and my IP is 192.168.1.1, but my router's IP is 123.45.6.78, then the RIAA will see BOTH addresses and know whether there's some NATting going on with a pretty high degree of certainty. However, if Kazaa reports the local IP as 123.45.6.78 as well, then it's highly unlikely any more than a single computer is behind that IP.
Reading the report, the "expert" here appears to be completely ignorant of this fact.
Also, some of this is really atrocious. Early in the report it cites an example of someone downloading child pornography sitting in a car by "hacking" a wi-fi network. Only at the end of the report does it admit that the network was unsecured. If you connect to 'linksys' are you "hacking" that network? Would you use that term No. No "hacking" (in any reasonable sense) is going on.
Is the "expert" a native English speaker? "Botnet, Trojan, and Back Door are example of malicious codes..." Aside from the grammatical atrocities, I have never heard of my fellow software engineers referring to software programs as "codes." A back-door is not a "code" or a program, nor are botnets. Bots are, Trojan (Horses) are, and they can open back doors. Precision, please?
Do look at the expert's biography page on the site shilling his book. Plenty of asserted qualifications and certifications, although I don't see any formal degrees listed anywhere. It also asserts that "One final note Jayson was chosen as one of Time's persons of the year for 2006." (hint: so were you). The grammar in the bio is even worse than in the expert brief. Do a search for his name and you'll find precious little at all.
I'm not saying that the RIAA is doing due diligence; the Lindor briefs leave a lot in question (although less than most slashdotters would like). However, fighting back with equally specious and unresearched information doesn't seem to be a much better strategy.
Same difference I would think.
When I lived at home with my parents, at its peak there were 6 licensed drivers, and 3 cars. My parents borrowed eachothers cars regularly, and us 'kids' borrowed their cars all the time too. While WE could probably deduce who was driving on a given day at a given time provided we received TIMELY notice:
1) Photo Enforcement Tickets were typically NOT timely.
2) It is not our responsibility to rat out our own family on violations that are frequently little more than thinly veiled tax revenue. (How long before I'm expected to turn in my sister for riding a bike without a helmet?)
3) Holding the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for traffic infractions is efficient tax collection, but fundamentally unjust.
[ Yes, I am an alumni of OSU. ]
Are you an alumnUS? Or are you siamese twins?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Everything that the security expert says in his submission to the court is, of course, true. But in the same way as the RIAA's submission doesn't tell the whole story, neither does this.
Universities have large IP blocks, and - for the most part - are in no danger of running out of IP addresses (negating the need - but not necessarily the use) of NAT technologies to get around this.
So while all of the assertions are true - there is still a reasonable (if not completely deterministic) chance that the IP address of the P2P user can be tied to a person (or, at least, network account).
So.. while there is no guarantee that they'll be able to identify the correct person.. there certainly are reasonable grounds for further investigation.. and so, IMO, the judge should side with the RIAA on this one.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
I hope he attacked his claims with a chain saw... Christ! Enough RIAA. We get it, dont illegal trade your terrible music. We get it, but we dont give a shit.
Don't they include the picture taken by the 'Red light cam'?? Can't you ID your own family members from a picture?
Holding the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for traffic infractions is efficient tax collection, but fundamentally unjust.
That's why, everywhere I've heard of, if you can show it was not you driving, they will go after the actual driver, and leave you alone.
Are you so thick headed you cannot comprehend the greater purpose behind the humble red light camera - or how they work? Do you not understand the basic logic that if people stopped running red lights, then there would be no fines handed out, fewer accidents, thus no money in the guise of 'thinly veiled tax revenue'? I expect you would respond with all the fringe situations in which you think you have no choice but to run a red light - police are people too - explain your valid reason and you might even find they retract the fine, or suck it up and pay because you broke a law for the common good of society.
Red light cameras are not just slapped at any and every intersection, generally they are only in areas that are more accident prone, or places with very high traffic flow. They are neither free to own or operate, over their lifetime very few will pay for themselves in the fines they are able to inflict.
It is ludicrous to think these things are revenue generators. They exist to keep people, apparently like you, in line so that others can be safe.
Now what would you say if your 'helmetless' sister died from preventable head injuries suffered because some moron ran a red light and legged it, never to be found? Morbid, yes, but it's all just revenue until it's too late right.
Their purpose is to make money, pure and simple. When these vigilantes start forgoing their fees, I'll start believing they're doing it for the good of the public. Right now, they're performing this "service" for the good of their bank accounts.
I hope this is a troll.....
Red light cameras increase the accident rate as often as they decrease it. Also, the real dangerous drivers that actually run the middle of the red light and T-bone innocent drivers, aren't paying attention. Before red light cameras they weren't paying attention in a situation where their life was at stake, now they aren't paying attention in a situation where their life plus a $100 ticket is at stake. It isn't a deterrent to the real problem.
The people who actually get tickets are the ones that don't even see the red light. If it changes while you are in the intersection, you are running it. When traffic is heavy, sometimes you get caught in it. The alternative is to wait back at the line for a huge clearing and go if the light hasn't turned yellow yet. I know of many intersections where there is no left turn signal and at rush hour, the only time to turn left is at the yellow when oncoming traffic stops. If people were to obey the letter of the law, it would take an hour to turn left.
There are also plenty of cases where the yellow duration is set at less than the legal minimum for an intersection of the type it is installed at. Sometimes, conveniently, they fix the timing three months after the camera is installed and claim that the reduction in fines is from the camera itself, while it is really from the adjustment of the timing.
In summary, red light cameras mostly ticket people who are not a threat to anyone and they unfairly target those who have one on their drive to work. Some people are scrutinized 500 times a year and not allowed to make a single mistake while others never get a look from a camera because of where they live.
I live near Buffalo, NY. Buffalo is considering putting red light cameras downtown and desyncronizing the lights on Delaware Avenue. They want people to hit more red lights. Buffalo doesn't like to raise property taxes because it is politically unpopular and nearly 50% of downtown land is tax-free. Buffalo loves "alternative revenue streams", our sales tax is around 9% (due to several recent hikes), we recently started charging sales tax for airport parking, the residents are still mad about a bunch of fees that have been newly assessed like a "garbage user fee" that used to be paid for with tax money. The Mayor even admits that revenue is part of the reason they are being considered.
They are neither free to own or operate, over their lifetime very few will pay for themselves in the fines they are able to inflict.
This is untrue. There are companies that will install the cameras for free, operate them for free, and only ask for a cut of the ticket money. There is zero chance that the city will lose money and I'm sure the chance that the operating company will lose money is also slim. In California, many red light cameras are operated by Lockheed Martin. In 2001, they were sued for camera placement in San Diego and had to refund a bunch of tickets after it was discovered that they had the cameras installed primarily in intersections where the yellow was too short or there was some other design flaw increasing the liklihood of someone running the red. No cameras were installed in the top 10 most dangerous intersections. Also, if you go to court to fight a citation, a CHP officer stands in to "represent the policies of the vendor". You never get to question your actual accuser.
...I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection. That's a contract between the ISP, the customer, and no one else. I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. The person is, reasonably, a suspect.Don't they include the picture taken by the 'Red light cam'?? Can't you ID your own family members from a picture?
Yes, a photo or two of the back of the vehicle. We don't actually have the ridiculous magical CSI tech that can reconstruct the drivers face by compositing the partial reflections in one side mirror with a partial reflection in the sunglasses of a nearby pedestrian. And god forbid you have tinted windows, or be driving at night...
That's why, everywhere I've heard of, if you can show it was not you driving, they will go after the actual driver, and leave you alone.
The only acceptable way to 'show it was not you driving' is to identify the driver for them. (Which given the vantage point and quality of the photos is a dubious proposition.) First and foremost its not even something you should have to do if you don't want to. And secondly it amounts to a system of "guilty by default", where YOU get nailed unless YOU can find the real crook. What kind of justice system is that?
The RIAA are like sharks, seeking out a lone victims and quickly eviscerating them, particularly the weak or the slow, and those already leaving a tempting blood-trail in the water.
By contrast, the defendents are starting to behave like dolphins, which individually will easily fall prey to sharks, but as a group may band together to rapidly ram the sharks in the gills or other sensitive organs until they break off, or eventually, due.
Give 'em another jab in the gills boys, and we'll see if the sharks will learn to stay away.
why aren't judges protecting the people?
The law is not really in the RIAA's favor here.
The RIAA has shown a history of fradulent law suits.
Why aren't people countersuing for malicious prosecution?
They're using their grammar skills there.
Yes, a photo or two of the back of the vehicle.
/ episode31.htm
http://www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60
http://www.mrtraffic.com/lacieneg.jpg
Those don't look like the backs of cars to me.
Okay, to be honest, most of the pix I found did indeed show the back of the vehicles. And in those cases, I agree with you. They should have to have a clear view of the driver to be admissible.
The only acceptable way to 'show it was not you driving' is to identify the driver for them.
Have you ever tried a sworn affidavit saying you were NOT the driver?
(Which given the vantage point and quality of the photos is a dubious proposition.)
You should know who was driving your car on the given day and time. If not, think of the ticket as a penalty for being dumb.
And secondly it amounts to a system of "guilty by default", where YOU get nailed unless YOU can find the real crook.
You don't have to "find" anybody. Just tell the cops who borrowed your car that day.
Look at it this way- if a gun registered in your name was used to kill someone, don't you think the cops would arrest you? They have evidence you were involved. If you can prove you sold the gun to someone else, they'll let you go and arrest that person instead. Same thing: it's your car, it's reasonable to assume you are driving it. If you were not driving it, it's reasonable to assume you know who was.
Almost the same, except here, it's like when you reverse out of a driveway and onto a street, you change license plates. Drive to the end of the street and turn onto the main road and you change license plates to the same plates as everyone who drives out of your street.
I don't therefore I'm not.
You may wonder why a red light camera has a speed tolerance. That's because they double as speed traps too.
As an added bonus when you yack away on your cell phone while being photographed you get 100 Francs tucked on to the fine for good measures.
You can try to contest it in court, but it's not a smart thing to do. Specifically for the reason how traffic fines are handled herearound: Fines under 300 Francs can be payed within 30 days without registration of personal details of the driver. If you don't pay in time, or if you contest it in court then it goes in front of a judge, which will cost you ~ 2'000 Francs instead of the 250 that the red light would have cost. (250 Francs ~= $200)
I really don't get why people are so worked up about those cameras. First you know where they are, they are not hidden. Second it's dangerous to run red lights and it's arguably even more dangerous to speed within city limits especially when yacking on a phone.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I can't imagine the red light cameras being set up that badly anywhere, but I can tell you that that's not how they are set up to work where I'm from. Our cameras only take pictures in two situations:
1. Someone drives through the intersection when the light is red BEFORE they even enter the intersection.
2. Someone speeds through the intersection at more than 5 mph over the posted limit.
Doing both nets both fines...
Also, who taught you about yellow lights and left turns? It's the time you enter the intersection that counts for weather or not you are breaking the law. Once you enter the intersection on a green or yellow, even if the light turns red you still have the right of way but you are required to leave the intersection ASAP.
I still hate the bloody cameras even though I know where they all are in the city. And I do find they cause many drivers to do dangerous things to avoid them.
You are the one full of crap.
You are correct that port forwarding is needed. So you turn on UPNP and the client sets the port to forward. Then each system on the network can use a different port. The IP does not and can not be used to ID the user. It can ID the router or the computer, but not the user! I have had 5 computer all connected to the same P2P network, all with the same IP (Assigned via DHCP from the ISP).
It could be argued that the owner of the router was equally guilty by aiding and abetting
Assuming he knew about it. Most routers have UPNP turned on and even today most 802.11 wifi system have no security turned on. If the owner is unaware of the actions that a user is taking or that a user is using his router, can we hold him responsible for the actions of that user?
"If it changes while you are in the intersection, you are running it"
Not quite. According to a police officer I was riding along with, a red light (in Texas, anyway) means that you may not ENTER the intersection, while green means that you may enter the intersection WHEN IT IS CLEAR (or when it is safe to do so). As long as you're over the line when the light goes red, you're not running it. (I'm not saying it's a good idea, though, just that it's legal) Now, if you just sit there, you can get a ticket for "obstructing traffic," or some such thing.
This officer also told me that these cameras are the safest way to enforce red lights. It's exceptionally hard for an officer to catch these people, because the officer 1) has to be able to see the light, 2) has to be in the front rank of cars, and 3) often as not would have to run the light themselves, which would be more dangerous than just letting the guy go. You can put an officer at each corner of the intersection, but that's manpower intensive, and people end up rubbernecking at the officers instead of paying attention to driving.
I can have as many as 40 computers running on my very basic home network. They will each and every one have the same IP address.
They will all have unique addresses. They will have (probably) a single PUBLIC address provided via NAT and advertised to the upstream network. Within your PRIVATE network, they will have unique addresses. This is the entire point of TFA.
If privacy had a tombstone it would read "We did it for your own good" . -- John Twelve Hawks
This is the problem with the legal system. At minimum, these tactics should be thrown out of court as SLAPP suits.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Red-light Camera's save lives, and reduce the largest intersection related fatal accidents significantly. Red light running is a serious problem in this country, when the FHWA started their enforcement campaign with the states Red Light running was causing 1000+ people a year lose their lives to it and was/is the single largest cause of urban moderate speed automobile related fatalities. Not only that but rate of red light running was increasing dramatically year on year (upwards of 5% a year at heavy intersections). It was and still is a serious problem that cannot be dismissed.
A basic understanding of crashes is needed to realize why red light crashes are so deadly. The majority of red light running accidents involve right-angle crashes (commonly known as T-bone). Right-angle crashes are the single largest cause of intersection related fatalities because the side of the car is very thin and offers very little crash protection, (or as one manufacturer put it, crumple zone) add in the fact that SUV bumpers sit at the height of the head of the occupant of a car and you have a recipe for disaster involving serious and quite often fatal head injuries. Car manufacturers have actually started to respond to this increase in right-angle crashes by equipping automobiles with side-air bags, a very expensive ($2-3000) option solely to negate some of the effects of right-angle crashes which are almost entirely intersection related and almost always involve red-light running accidents.
The following FHWA study concluded that the red-light cameras result in a 1-40% (the majority declined close to 30%, there was a single jurisdiction where the decline was 1% and the jurisdiction involved was obviously choosing poor locations for camera equipped intersections) decline in right-angle crashes AND the number of accidents decline year over year as people become aware of the cameras. And when factoring in the increase in rear-end collisions the decline is still a very hefty 27% on average, but the corresponding rear-end collision increase results in almost no increase to fatalities. The conclusion of the study was clear, when used at intersection where there is a problem with red-light running the decline in accidents is not only significant it's quite large, and the year over year gains are nothing to ignore as they approach 50-60% decline, saving numerous lives every year.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/
Those don't look like the backs of cars to me.
Even those photos that showed the front of the car were hardly a clear picture of the driver. But regardless, we agree that there usually isn't a clear picture of the driver.
Have you ever tried a sworn affidavit saying you were NOT the driver?
Around here, if you don't 'nominate the driver' (their words), you pay the fine. Period. They don't actually need the driver, and in the absence of a nominated driver, the owner is responsible. If you give them the driver, they'll go after the driver, but otherwise its your problem.
And if you give them the driver, the driver is fucked, because now they have a witness (you) offering positive identification. Around here, that means they put 'points' on their license. If they just have the owner, they don't give the owner points, because their is no positive identification of the driver. So, if you rat out your family, the penalty actually goes up... fine + points for them vs just fine for you.
You should know who was driving your car on the given day and time. If not, think of the ticket as a penalty for being dumb.
I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to know who was driving one of the family cars 3 months ago at a given time of day. And even if I do know I shouldn't have to nominate them to avoid being fined for a crime I didn't commit.
Look at it this way- if a gun registered in your name was used to kill someone, don't you think the cops would arrest you? They have evidence you were involved. If you can prove you sold the gun to someone else, they'll let you go and arrest that person instead.
Interesting example. However, no, they won't automatically arrest you. They WILL come and question you, and they'll likely even bring a warrant because they have reasonable cause to believe you were involved, it being your gun and all. But ultimately unless they have reason to actually beleive it was you, beyond it being your gun they won't arrest and charge you -- and even if they did, your defense lawyer would tear the case in half if all they had was a bullet match to your gun. To be put in the position of choosing between a conviction and identifying the real killer yourself represents a serious miscarriage of justice; police interrogation techniques 'as seen on TV' notwithstanding.
Now, in the case of murder, its true in some cases that if you do know who committed the murder and won't speak, you can be charged with accessory to murder, but that's an entirely separate issue. And in that case they have to prove you deliberately lied to them... merely not knowing who used the gun is NOT accessory to murder.
With red light running, thankfully, its not so serious a crime, because they can pretty much automatically convict you on the basis of a photo of your vehicle, unless you nominate the real driver. But its still a miscarriage of justice.
Which is connected to a wireless secure router.
I could have not secured it, in which case anyone could wargang it and download music without authorization.
Or it could be my son had a friend over who did it while he was upstairs in the bathroom - usually as a joke, teens do that a lot.
Or it could be the girlfriend of my son wanted to show him her cool blog which had music on it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Are you so thick headed you cannot comprehend the greater purpose behind the humble red light camera
The stated greater purpose, is to prevent red light running, to increase safety. And it may well even succeed at that.
I also know how they work. A picture is taken, while the right is red, of your vehicle outside the intersection, then a 2nd picture is taken, while the right is red, of your vehicle inside the intersection, proving that the vehcle entered the intersection while the light was red. (And thus not catching people who entered on a green/yellow and who had to wait until the light changed before exitting.
I have no dispute with the methodology used to identify which vehicles run red lights. The issue I have with red light cameras is that they are 'unjust' and that trumps everything including 'effective'.
I expect you would respond with all the fringe situations in which you think you have no choice but to run a red light
You would be wrong, I agree that if you ran a red with a valid reason (of which there are few but they do exist), the court may well drop the issue.
or suck it up and pay because you broke a law for the common good of society
The issue I have is that what happens if I didn't break the law, if it wasn't me driving? Why exactly should I have to pay for that?! Why am I guilty by default - unless I find someone else to pin the crime on. And if I can't remember who drove the vehicle that day several months ago, whether it was me or someone else, I'm automatically guilty.
That is not just.
I am ALL for red light enforcement, and I would be HAPPY to see red light camera's used in tandem with an officer to pull over the offending vehicle and ticket the DRIVER, right there on the spot.
Its also worth mentioning that I am far more opposed to speed enforcement than red light enforcement by automated camera. Perhaps because speed enforcement feels more like entrapment; society and traffic flow treat speed limits more as control parameters than actual limits; and the flow of traffic inevitably both drops below and surges past them, making us all criminals.
Now what would you say if your 'helmetless' sister died from preventable head injuries suffered because some moron ran a red light and legged it, never to be found? Morbid, yes, but it's all just revenue until it's too late right.
What if my 'helmetless' sister died from chest injuries (say a rib puncture to the lung) that could have been prevented had she only been wearing a kevlar vest? Kevlar vests for all cyclists? But what if she was crossing the interection on foot? - pedestrians to start wearing helmets and kevlar too?
Maybe if the red-light runner had been PULLED the fuck over two intersections back or even two days back for driving poorly the driver would have gotten a wake up call and my sister would have been saved. Instead he's just going to get a bill for $150 bucks a couple months after the fact, which his dad will end up paying because its actually his truck, and he has 3 kids all of which borrow it.
What would I do? Clearly, if I want to save lives, I would ban cars. Its the only way to be sure.
Now obviously that's an unreasonable step. So how about things like in-person traffic enforcement. Improving the design of dangerous intersections "traffic shaping", pedestrian overpasses, etc. And like I said, give the officer a red light camera to help him do enforcement. I'm not against cameras. I'm against default-responsibility arriving in the mail for a violation you might not even have committed a few months ago.
Add in the fact that SUV bumpers sit at the height of the head of the occupant of a car and you have a recipe for disaster involving serious and quite often fatal head injuries
Interesting that the design of a certain type of vehicle with a bumper height right at head level is contributing to fatalities yet nowhere do you suggest that perhaps these vehicles are a big part of the problem, that perhaps SUVs ought to be required to ride lower, at least when on road, and/or at highway speeds.
Seems a no brainer to me.
Police officers swear by the reduction in accidents and the crash statistics are clear that red-light cameras save lives and reduce the costs of accidents.
I don't deny the effectiveness. However the cameras, by targeting owners not drivers, are fundamentally unjust.
Just think of all the lives and injuries that could be saved if we banned guns and sports. Just because it would reduce injuries, doesn't mean its a good idea.
You want some just solutions:
Build an overpass or a round-about (T-Bone's don't occur if there is NO RIGHT ANGLE INTERSECTION).
Have an arm come down like at railway crossings.
Enforce it in person so that an officer pulls over offending vehicles and tickets the DRIVER. The officer is free to use a red-light camera to identify drivers, and to use as evidence.
This officer also told me that these cameras are the safest way to enforce red lights. It's exceptionally hard for an officer to catch these people, because the officer 1) has to be able to see the light, 2) has to be in the front rank of cars, and 3) often as not would have to run the light themselves, which would be more dangerous than just letting the guy go. You can put an officer at each corner of the intersection, but that's manpower intensive
Or you can equip the intersection with a camera, but have it manned by a single officer who uses it to identify who to pull over, and as evidence against them. This dodges all 3 issues:
1) The police office does not have to see the light. The camera provides the evidence.
2) The police officer does not have to be in the front rank of cars. He can be stationed anywhere.
3) The police officer does not have to run the light himself. He can even be safely stationed out of sight, past the intersection.
4) It is not manpower intensive. It can be done by a single officer.
And as a bonus, when the camera is not being manned it can used to send out notices to people who ran the light. Sort of a hey, did you know you ran this light, and had it been manned you would have been charged.
Point is I don't have anything against camera assisted enforcement, I have a problem with automatic camera enforcement that targets the owner of a vehicle, where you are only even notified of a violation you may not even know has happened months after it happened, where you are responsible even if you weren't driving. (responsible for either paying the ticket or nominating someone else to pay the ticket.)
The following FHWA study concluded that the red-light cameras result in a 1-40% (the majority declined close to 30%...
Sorry for the double response, but this occurred to me after the fact. I'm curious to know what effect the FINE had on the impact of camera enforcement.
in other words:
Would doubling the fine make the camera's twice as effecitve? Would halving make the camera's half as effective? What if the camera's merely sent out warning notices instead of actual fines? Would be they be completely inneffective?
Somehow, I think that dramatic improvements could be made with mere warnings, especially if they regularly manned the cameras as well and pulled over drivers on the spot. (e.g. where an officer links up to the camera beyond the intersection and tickets drivers in person, using the camera to identify them, and as evidence against them.)
I suspect most of the advantages of the cameras would be realized, and the system would would be much more just, as during enforcement the actual drivers would be ticketed directly, on the spot. Would knowing the camera was there and might be manned be nearly the same deterrent? I think quite possibly it would.
I wonder if there is a study on that?
"Reasonable doubt" does not mean moral certainty.
Your plate is on the car. The car matches the plate. The odds are overwealming that you, a friend, or family member, will have been behind the wheel -- with your express or implied consent.
This seems to me a "reasonable" argument for the state to make:
You aren't in court because you were the driver, you are in court because you are responsible for the use of your car. Vicarious liability in the United States
"Traffic Court" may not be a criminal court at all. Traffic Violations Bureau
You may be facing the streanlined procedures, lower burden of proof, and limited right of appeal of administrative law.
In a pre-technological society you learn to live with the uncertainties of eye-witness testimony.
Personally, I'd rather take my chances challenging the evidence of the camera then directlty contradicting the testimony of the village policeman or state trooper who everyone in town has known since the days he was a five-year old kid on a tricycle.
West coast fines are usually over $100. East coast fines are usually $100 or less. Both have similar success rates.
If you can't figure out a denominator to put under those saved lives and express it as "1 life saved per xxx", then you are not being rational and your results are meaningless. Every denominator that makes red light cameras a success will lead to logic that, taken to the extreme, comes out to "no more driving = no more driving deaths".
Besides, even if you are right about the benefits of red light cameras outweighing the costs, they aren't the right way to do it. Our traffic laws were never meant to be enforced this way. They are written in such a way that a regular bad driver will be caught by the police and sent to traffic school. Automated enforcement of existing laws catches the wrong people 99% of the time just to get the 1%, and then calls it a success. By this measure, simply raising registration fees to $10,000 a year would be a success because it would save a lot of lives. Less people on the road means less lives lost.
Also, red light cameras are a cess-pool of corruption. San Diego had to take them out in 2001 because they let Lockheed Martin fleece the public without making any safety improvements. California eventually had to pass laws to prevent localities from handing over control of the citizen's wallets to red light companies. They'd still be doing it if it weren't made illegal. Just last year ACS, the company the spun off of Lockheed Martin, was involved in a bribery scandal involving red light cameras. Police departments regularly harrass innocent people into "squealing" on their friends and relatives to collect fine money, and they stoop to almost illegal levels to do so. I have links for all four of these if you are interested.
If you want to make driving safer in the US, raise the bar for getting a license (more training and harder tests), and have regular re-tests.
Police officers swear by the reduction in accidents and the crash statistics are clear that red-light cameras save lives and reduce the costs of accidents.
At the risk of sounding inflammatory, I don't care what police officers swear by. 80% of them obviously don't believe what they spout off or the world would be a different place. If police officers really felt that the actual fine was what taught people a lesson and saved their lives, then more of them would give that fine to their co-workers and self professed best friends (other cops). The fact that police professional courtesy exists, even in a small fraction, shows that cops are sparing their friends inconvenience, not lessons. If they really thought a ticket was a significant part of saving someone's life, they'd write more to each other. Instead of bringing up the opinion of police officers, show me independent, non-biased research, of which there is very little on red light cameras.
If you give them the driver, they'll go after the driver,
Which is what I've said you should do all along. So what's the problem? You don't want to 'rat' on your friend or family? Then pay the price for protecting the guilty.
your defense lawyer would tear the case in half if all they had was a bullet match to your gun.
Then hire that same lawyer to get yourself out of the red light ticket.
It certainly does "count" as a defense. In criminal proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the state to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state cannot convincingly place the defendant at the scene of the crime (bad photo, no face)there is no "absolute proof", only circumstantial evidence and supposition. Entering evidence of an alternate supposition can and SHOULD raise reasonable doubt. The state is making assumptions as to the identity of the driver. If there are equally possible alternate scenarios, the state cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read about the Minneapolis case where the district court abolished such cameras. Clearly, greater legal minds than yours believe that the system is inherently unfair.
Minnesota courts don't seem to agree with you.
It is NOT the responsibility of the defendant to do the police work for the state. The defendant does not have to find the guilty party just because the state decides to be lazy and let cameras and computers do their work for them. The defendant ONLY has to introduce reasonable doubt as to his/her own guilt. Barring a convincing photo that shows the defendant driving the car, it will take very little to introduce that doubt. Remember, the defendant does not have to testify on his/her own behalf, so he/she cannot be compelled to identify the driver. He/she merely needs to call a witness that can testify that there is more than one individual with access to the vehicle. If the state cannot place the owner with the car, there is reasonable doubt.
Think about it this way. The state wants to convict you of a crime by simply saying, it could be you. With our legal rights, they must say it has to be you.
So what's the problem? You don't want to 'rat' on your friend or family? Then pay the price for protecting the guilty.
1) If I receive a ticket months from now, I don't know which of several drivers it might have been. If its a nearby common intersection, I wouldn't even know if it was or was not me. If I am vacationing in Thailand, how am I supposed to know which of my kids was driving that day?
2) And even if I do know who it is I should not have to report them to avoid a default conviction. That is not justice.
Then hire that same lawyer to get yourself out of the red light ticket.
On what grounds exactly? The law clearly says that the owner of the vehicle shall be ticketed, regardless of whether the owner even committed the violation. There is no room to manoever; their is no threshold that you commited the crime beyond a resonable doubt -- it *doesn't matter* if you weren't the driver and can't remember who was driving because you were on a month long trip to Thailand when it happened.
Its an unjust law. But because the only penalty is a 'fine', its been ruled 'not unconstitutional', and falls under the same category as parking violations, where they ticket the 'car'.
The law clearly says that the owner of the vehicle shall be ticketed, regardless of whether the owner even committed the violation.
Then that's the law. Obey it, or face the penalties.
Its an unjust law.
I'm sure murderers thing laws against murder are unjust.
I'm sure drug dealers thing laws against dealing drugs are unjust.
Driving is a privledge, not a Right. Obey the rules, or you get penalized. Get penalized enough, you lose the privledge to drive. Don't like it? Change the law.
> ... and once some of those computers go to class (or to sleep, for example,) ...
> take over the MAC address and ask for a new DHCP lease
Is it really necessary to ask for a new lease? I thought one can just take over both the MAC address and the IP address and use it. Shouldn't be a problem as long as the other computer is off. (or just take the IP address. Behind my NAT router at home I just assign static IP addresses and they of course work as long as they are in the same subnet. When in the distant past I asked to use my own laptop in the (university) department network the helpdesk guy just told me to make up an IP address in the network and there should be no problem.)
Then that's the law. Obey it, or face the penalties.
I'm sure murderers thing laws against murder are unjust.
What exactly is your point? That only people in contradiction with laws may find them unjust? Well, that's absurd, and irrelevant as well as I am not a red light runner; and yet I STILL think automated enforcement is unjust.
Driving is a privledge, not a Right.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. This isn't about driving, so this is completely irrelevant. One doesn't even have to have a valid drivers license to be penalized by this law. All I have to do is OWN one that other people drive.
Don't like it? Change the law.
Well DUH! So here I am explaining why I think its a bad law, why I think its an unjust law, to bring more people around to my point of view. This is how laws get changed in a democracy.
One doesn't even have to have a valid drivers license to be penalized by this law. All I have to do is OWN one that other people drive.
...by arguing with someone who obviously does not agree with you, in a 2-day old thread that no one is reading anymore?
I'm sure pointing out to the judge that you don't have a DL will be a point in your favor. Telling him who was actually driving will most likely get the fine taken away.
So here I am explaining why I think its a bad law, why I think its an unjust law, to bring more people around to my point of view.
I'm sure pointing out to the judge that you don't have a DL will be a point in your favor.
No. It makes no difference.
This is why rental car companies require you to sign waivers authorizing them to bill you if they receive any automated tickets if you rent in areas where they have these systems. Because, the rental car companies, ie the -corporation- itself, which not only doesn't have a drivers license, but is utterly incapable of driving a vehicle were being held responsible for paying the tickets.
And they were unable to effectively nominate the driver even though they knew who it was -- because the driver rented it six months ago while on vacation from a foreign country.
by arguing with someone who obviously does not agree with you, in a 2-day old thread that no one is reading anymore?
Yeah, but what I can't figure out is WHY you don't agree. That's what kept me interested.