Slashdot Mirror


Roadside Cameras Infected with WannaCry Virus Invalidate 8,000 Traffic Tickets (yahoo.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader nri tipped us off to a developing story in Victoria, Australia. Yahoo News reports: Victoria Police officials announced on Saturday, June 24, they were withdrawing all speed camera infringement notices issued statewide from June 6 after a virus in the cameras turned out to be more widespread than first thought. "That does not mean they [the infringement notices] won't not be re-issued," Assistant Commissioner Doug Fryer told reporters, explaining that he wants to be sure the red light and speed cameras were working correctly. Acting Deputy Commissioner Ross Guenther told reporters on Friday that 55 cameras had been exposed to the ransomware virus, but they've now determined 280 cameras had been exposed. The cameras are not connected to the internet, but a maintenance worker unwittingly connected a USB stick with the virus on it to the camera system on June 6.

Fryer said that about 1643 tickets would be withdrawn -- up from the 590 that police had announced on Friday -- and another five and a half thousand tickets pending in the system would be embargoed. Fryer said he was optimistic the 7500 to 8000 tickets affected could be re-issued, but for now police would not issue new tickets until police had reviewed the cameras to ensure they were functioning properly... The "WannaCry" malware caused the cameras to continually reboot, Fryer said. Fryer said there was no indication the malware had caused inaccurate radar readings, but police were being "over cautious" to maintain public faith in the system.

Last week Victoria's Police Minister was "openly furious" with the private camera operator, saying the group hadn't notified the relevant authorities about the infection.

175 comments

  1. For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The bad guys accidentally did society a favor.

    1. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really. The people speeding will still get a ticket. A repair man as an extra expense will need to be sent out. The tax payers will get the bill for it.

    2. Re:For once by Mr0bvious · · Score: 2

      But who the fsck chooses windows for such a device?

      I'm not a "Linux is going to be the new desktop" guy. But for this type of non user device why on earth would you put a desktop OS on it?

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    3. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people take the cheap options all the time and it could be a windows embedded system or such. Regardless the real question is why the fuck was such a device exposed or allowed to be connected to a network that could be infected in this way, regardless of what OS they use such a security sensitive device should not be at risk to such exposure.

    4. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't online. Read the summary at least.

    5. Re:For once by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Probably because the decisions are made via a contractor circlejerk to bring in money instead of anything necessarily involving anyone competent.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:For once by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Doesn't WannaCry spread over SMB? If you did happen to use Windows for some weird reason, why on earth would you leave the SMB port open?

      Actually I've worked with people using Windows for embedded, so I can imagine what the whole system looks like. It's mainly image recognition stuff, so it was probably built by computer scientists who really don't have a clue about system building.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:For once by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 0

      That was my immediate reaction as well, I mean, Windows on a fricken speed camera? Those things need to run under adverse conditions with dodgy power and who knows what else, and they use an OS that needs more care than an incontinent puppy?

    8. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you did happen to use Windows for some weird reason, why on earth would you leave the SMB port open?

      1. People are lazy
      2. It's open by default
      3. "These cameras are all on a private network"
      4. HwyRobbery®, Ltd. SpeedTrap® version 2.06 requires SMB to communicate

    9. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the summary, USB drive...

    10. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is cheaper. It's free and so is 99% of the software.

    11. Re:For once by dwywit · · Score: 2

      I doubt that -"Victoria's Police Minister was "openly furious" with the private camera operator,"

      usually means "you WILL fix this, and you will NOT bill us for it, or we'll exercise our rights to terminate the contract". There are (from the summary) two other companies with speed/red light camera contracts, who I'm sure will be eager to take on the additional revenue-raisers.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    12. Re: For once by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But to maintain it, you can't hire chimps. In the long run, Windows gets cheaper that way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, read the summary - they aren't connected to the *internet*.

    14. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you think about the problem logically?

      USB = infecting ONE computer.

      How did it spread from there? One tech didn't go and plug the USB into over 200 computers.

      The computers may be networked without that network being internet-connected. The internet isn't necessary for computers to talk to each other for other reasons e.g. uploading camera photos to a central server.

    15. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows OS is used in many non-safety related applications in nuclear power plants worldwide.

      Happens all the time because the human interface is well-developed and easy to use and train on.

    16. Re:For once by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      One tech didn't go and plug the USB into over 200 computers.

      It's possible. Maybe he was doing some kind of upgrade.

      Or to use the writing style of the article, it's not impossible that he wasn't unperforming some kind of downgrade.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:For once by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Why do you think malware would edit the photographs or move the distance markers around? On the scale of reasonable doubt it's quite "aliens did it" but it's not far off.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:For once by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

      Because if it is not run on every desktop, you cannot find cheap coders for it. So, if teenagers are taught in the college to work with Windows, they are not able to program anything else.

    19. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said they were on the internet, learn to read. Just because they weren't on the internet doesn't mean they are "safe" from online attacks. such a device needs to be on an isolated and heavily controlled network as it is dealing with millions of dollars of fines daily and secondly they are supposed to be relied upon as evidence in a court of law, the fact something like Wannacry got onto that is a massive IT failure from a networking and security perspective.

    20. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ignorant bullshit. The cost of the OS in any such project is not even a rounding error. The cost is entirely with drivers, hardware and application support and whichever OS has the ones that support the associated manufacturer will be orders of magnitude cheaper.

    21. Re:For once by sjames · · Score: 2

      These are radar cameras. They snap a picture of the car and the radar determined speed. No markers.

      Now, the virus caused them to reboot frequently. What effect did that have on the radar calibration? I don't know either. Did it cause the system to go to an operational state at any point when the radar wasn't ready? Also don't know and neither do you.

      Is it worth doing extensive testing under those conditions in order to re-instate 7000 speeding tickets? Probably not.

      Now, as for your case of markers on a speed camera, Determining speed is a matter of seeing how long it took a car to get from A to B which will depend on the system clock (or frame rate) being correct. It's not that hard to imagine something being a bit off there.

    22. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to forget that WannaCry/WannaCrypt is not just an ransomware, but also a worm which checsk port 445 and exploit SMBv1 if it is running in the background and populate through SMB. Yes, only 1 USB with WannaCrypt but it can spread like wildfire to all your endpoints too especially on NON-XP machines. Already confirmed by researchers that WannaCry would just crash an XP machine and won't infect it. Only un-updated Vista, Win7, Win8.1 was vulnerable.

    23. Re: For once by Mr0bvious · · Score: 1

      These are a box on top of a pole that control a camera. A well-developed easy to use and train on interface is not required.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    24. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Letting people who drive too fast and run a greater chance of killing someone avoid a speeding ticket is a favour to society?

    25. Re:For once by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You've made a case for possibly. It's nowhere near probably.

      Cosmic rays could possibly affect the reading.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TCO is much more than purchase price. In fact, for PCs, purchase price is less than 20% of 5 year TCO. That info has been available for over 15 years. Please try to keep up. :-)

    27. Re:For once by djrosen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speed limits are arbitrary and are in place to make money.
      https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/sp...
      "Despite the general acceptance and wide-spread use of speed limits throughout the world, there has been no consensus among practitioners concerning the methods and techniques that should be used to select the most appropriate speed limit for a particular facility. At the current time, it appears unlikely that any consensus will be achieved in the near future. This leaves practitioners without definitive guidance on this important issue, and in search of information to assist them. This report provides the information necessary for practitioners to make informed decisions in selecting a method for setting speed limits in their jurisdiction."

    28. Re:For once by mjwx · · Score: 2

      I can't see how the motorists can be convicted. A lawyer just has to ask "Does the manufacturer warrant the accuracy of the camera device when infected with malware?"

      The answer of course will be "no". The standard of proof is not lowered just because an offence is minor.

      Once it happens in one case, all the other cases will be dropped.

      This is how it works in Australia.

      The burden of evidence is on the police, who are making the accusation.

      If you can call into question the accuracy of the evidence, your case will be dropped. You get a presumption of innocence because the evidence arrayed against you was less than rock solid.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    29. Re: For once by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Regular speeding is a criminal matter, in AUS? It is a civil offense, most places. Well, unless you're going really fast. That is often called Criminal Speeding, a wholly different charge. I would be kinda surprised if it were criminal in Oz.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    30. Re:For once by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You've got it the wrong way round. If you're claiming doppelgangers or witchcraft as a defense it's not up to the prosecution to disprove them.

      Just like you can't just say "self defense" against an assault charge; you have to provide credible evidence that the person was about to attack you.

      Given that this malware had a specific purpose - which wasn't recalibrating radar guns - I'd say it made no difference.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:For once by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      The problem is described as repeated camera reboots. Quite likely the cameras worked as well as ever (not necessarily all that well) when they were working. They just weren't working much of the time. If it is established that's the case, probably the tickets will be reissued. If, OTOH there's any chance that the reboots cause a problem. If for example, there is a recalibration period after reboot that turns out upon scrutiny to be too short, the tickets presumably won't be reissued.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    32. Re:For once by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "But for this type of non user device why on earth would you put a desktop OS on it?"

      Reasonable question, but go check the Internet and see how many images you can find in 3 minutes of BSOD screens on kiosks, airport arrival/departure screens, ATMs, etc.

      You do need an OS for most everything except carefully hand crafted embedded systems. And even there you need an OS for development and maintenance. It's not surprising that sometimes the OS is Windows although -- all other things being equal -- it wouldn't be my first choice.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    33. Re:For once by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      5. The Windows configuration screens are pretty opaque. If you know you have to turn SMB1 off, it's probably not hard to do, but how would anyone not gifted with clairvoyance know months or years ago when the camera was set up to do that?.
      6. Turning stuff off with no good reason often is a great way to break things that appears to be unrelated Example: Turning off icmp on a router breaks PMTUD thereby probably leading to blackhole routing failures for those trying to talk through the router.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    34. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question you should be asking is what is your proof that the new programming installed on the cameras does not include any routines that would damage the evidence. That is what a lawyer will be asking the technician who put in the USB stick in examination. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

      If the software was properly validated (you know, a proper update) then the technician would easily provide proof, maybe even source code. He will have a hard time doing that for the malware, won't he?

      Breathalyzer tickets were put in the trash in the US for simple programming errors, never mind random malware code.

    35. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_liability#Australia

      That is how Australia defines speeding in a legal sense. The difference is not a reduction in the quality of evidence accepted. Rather, a lack of Mens Rea is unavailable as a defence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea ). Since one cannot get out of an absolute liability offence by proving you did not mean to do it (for example, a speeding ticket in Australia would still hold if your accelerator was provably stuck) judges expect the evidence provided to be top notch since that is literally the only thing the defence has as an opportunity to 'get out of jail free'.

      Most judges look negatively against all absolute liability cases and very much try to side with the defence if there are evidence faults. Even simple things like writing down the wrong information about your car can work to your advantage (whereas a police officer forgetting if you wore jeans or shorts when you murdered someone would be forgiven in a murder trial).

    36. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ransomware has the specific purpose of making the device not work the way it is meant to until the ransom is paid.

      If I were targeting speed cameras for ransom, I would of course cause them to issue tickets for lower speeds - that get noticed much faster than a mere failure to issue tickets.

    37. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasonable question, but go check the Internet and see how many images you can find in 3 minutes of BSOD screens on kiosks, airport arrival/departure screens, ATMs, etc.

      And see how many images you can find of such devices with a "kernel panic". There are fewer - but that doesn't necessarily mean linux gets deployed less.

    38. Re:For once by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      'Probably' isn't relevant here. This isn't a civil case; it's a criminal case where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

      Some states have a civil speeding infraction as well, with a criminal charge possible for excess or reckless speed. Example: MI, MA

      Some states have only criminal speed offenses. Example: CA, IL

    39. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are failing to understand which side the burden of proof is on in a court case.

    40. Re: For once by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Hmm...

      In the US, civil offenses are things which can, no matter what, not include a custodial sentence.

      Criminal offenses are those which may include a custodial sentence. (Which is where the 6th comes into play, such as a right to a lawyer being provided if you can't afford one.)

      If I'm understanding correctly, they can chuck you in jail for exceeding the speed limit by a mere 1 kph?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    41. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot. You call out people for reading comprehension and you don't even comprehend the article. The malware got into the network because someone plugged in an infected USB drive. This has nothing to do with what you are talking about. NOTHING.

    42. Re:For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer of course will be "no". The standard of proof is not lowered just because an offence is minor.

      De jure, it is not. De facto, it is.

      Have you ever been to traffic court? I have... more than any other single thing, it undermined my faith in the US justice system. I'm convinced that quite literally cities view traffic tickets as a revenue stream as much as anything else (yes, they also see it as a way to enforce social order and the public good), and jaded and bored judges rubberstamp convictions.

      Lawyers say to not bother fighting tickets, and if you (or at least I) show up with evidence, it will be cursory looked at and ignored. The police's word is sacred (to the point that their testimony was there was literally two sentence fragments like, "accurate and true?" "yes." This covered some 30 tickets).

      I'm 66% sure that even with this defect, if this went to a traffic court the "obviously guilty" person would still receive their fine because, "innocent people don't end up in court" and "it's just $150 (plus $75 in court fees) and 1 point on your license, don't worry about it."

    43. Re:For once by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's way above cosmic rays as a probability. It's a system that may or may not be doing a normal initialization and that is certainly doing so more frequently than it should. It's a system depending on stable oscillators when the temperature is swinging widely.

      Perhaps more to the point, It's a condition that the manufacturer is unlikely to certify accuracy for.

    44. Re:For once by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The malware could have an effect on the internal clock.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    45. Re:For once by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Lawyers say to not bother fighting tickets, and if you (or at least I) show up with evidence, it will be cursory looked at and ignored.

      I have experienced this. I was towed for allegedly parking too close to a fire hydrant. I showed up in court with photographs of the area to show how I couldn't possibly have done what they accused me of doing but the judge just didn't care. He reduced my fine by $20 and sent me on my way. He stated the charge, asked me if I was pleading not guilty and without hearing any evidence started to declare his ruling. I interrupted him by saying that I had photographs of the area and an explanation as to how it wasn't possible. He looked at my pictures for approximately 4 seconds before continuing with the finding as if I hadn't even been there.

      The only way it could have possibly been more obvious that it was only about money would have been if the judge had said so explicitly.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    46. Re:For once by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      These are radar cameras. They snap a picture of the car and the radar determined speed. No markers.

      Now, the virus caused them to reboot frequently. What effect did that have on the radar calibration? I don't know either. Did it cause the system to go to an operational state at any point when the radar wasn't ready? Also don't know and neither do you.

      Is it worth doing extensive testing under those conditions in order to re-instate 7000 speeding tickets? Probably not.

      Now, as for your case of markers on a speed camera, Determining speed is a matter of seeing how long it took a car to get from A to B which will depend on the system clock (or frame rate) being correct. It's not that hard to imagine something being a bit off there.

      I don't see that calibration would be an issue. As you said, a speed calculation is from going from point A to point B with a certain time length. If a distortion of calibration occurs from rebooting, then it is a uniform error for both measurement of point A and B; thus, the result of calculation is still valid. However, I don't know how they handle the reboot issue during the first and second images are taken. How does their camera work? Would it take the next image after reboot and then compare with the previous taken image, and that would be inaccurate (compared images of 2 cars instead)?

      Aside from that, the English language in TFA is bothering me (from the person who either said or wrote it)...

      “That does not mean they [the infringement notices] won’t not be re-issued,” Assistant Commissioner Doug Fryer told reporters, explaining that he wants to be sure the red light and speed cameras were working correctly.

      .

    47. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My kid once got a parking ticket for staying more than 2 hours in a spot. The thing is, he was there, then came home for dinner, then returned to that spot. It was only 15 min drive from our house and he was there photographing. We tried to fight the ticket but our only evidence in his defense was texts about coming home for dinner, and that was rejected without explanation. The police didn't have to provide any evidence at all - they didn't have any timestamped photographs of the car parked there (or wouldn't produce them because it they would show the car had been moved), they didn't have any chalk marks on the tires. Just their word against ours. It sucks when you know you are not guilty but have to pay anyway. The consequences for not paying the fine are too big.

    48. Re: For once by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Happens all the time because the human interface is well-developed and easy to use and train on.

      Windows 8/10's Metro disproves this statement.

    49. Re: For once by zaphodbeeblebox · · Score: 1

      No, you get a fine for being 3km/h over the speed limit and demerit points, on a sliding scale. 12 demerit points lead to loss of license.
      At 25km/h over the limit you automatically lose your license for a period.
      At 45km/h over the limit you also lose the car for a period of time.

      If you are speeding enough and there are sufficient aggravating circumstances you can be charged and go to jail.

    50. Re:For once by zaphodbeeblebox · · Score: 1

      They have already waived the fines from some machines they know are affected. They have then held all the other fines to make sure they are not issuing fines falsely. Once they have checked everything they will issue the fines from the cameras that were not affected.

      And those fines are between $194 and $777 for normal vehicles and $272 and $1788 for trucks, so even every every fine was the lowest level, they are worth 1.358 million dollars. In addition to that, they have it automatically listed as to where the fine came from, so as they check the camera to ensure the new fines are ok, they can just release the existing ones as well, it isn't that much extra effort.

    51. Re:For once by zaphodbeeblebox · · Score: 1

      From the article, it is implied that the the same tech visited multiple cameras to do maintenance, and plugged the same USB into each. This would make sense, as he would have been doing the same action to each camera.

    52. Re:For once by sjames · · Score: 1

      Since the camera is actually using radar, it will depend on precision components behaving with precision. It is not at all unusual for such devices to need at least a short time to come to stable operation. Flipping power on and off frequently (as rebooting can do to peripherals) is not a good way to achieve that.

      Without manufacturer certification for accuracy under those conditions, it might as well read "for novelty use only" on the side.

    53. Re:For once by sjames · · Score: 1

      It makes perfect sense to re-issue the fines if the source camera is found to have never been infected. That doesn't involve extensive testing. But if the camera was infected, better to let it go than spend millions certifying they operate correctly under a condition everyone hopes they will never be in again.

    54. Re: For once by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      When I went to court, the officer who cited me didn't even show up and nether did anyone from the towing company. The judge just called my name and when I stepped up, he issued his ruling.

      I'll say it here since they can't have this scrubbed like they did my negative Yelp review.

      McGann and Chester is the company that towed and impounded my car.
      The company, McGann and Chester, is a bunch of scam artists.
      McGann and Chester colludes with the Pittsburgh Police Department to extort money from innocent motorists.
      I'll never call McGann and Chester for roadside assistance.
      If AAA sends McGann and Chester, I'll demand a different company.
      No one should ever call McGann and Chester for any reason, ever.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    55. Re:For once by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Would a radar speed gun use the computer's internal clock? I doubt it would be fast enough.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    56. Re:For once by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No I'm not, you are.

      You're also fat and think dinosaurs coexisted with humans.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    57. Re: For once by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Ah. okay. The legal terminology is different here. Civil matters (like simple speeding - less than 30 mph over the speed limit) mean you can not go to jail - there's no method in the law for that offense to send you to jail. Criminal matters are those for which the judge can send you to jail. They may not give you a custodial sentence, but they can. That's the difference between a civil and criminal offense.

      Civil matters require less proof. They must prove you more likely than not committed the offense alleged by the State.

      Criminal matters require more proof. They must prove that you committed the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    58. Re:For once by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not but if the malware caused a delay in taking the photograph, the car that's captured might not be the one that exceeded the speed limit.

      Have they done their due diligence to show that this isn't happening?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    59. Re:For once by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      The thing is, what else is it doing? A speed camera works on 1/10th of a second, probably even in Australia. If something else is running in this case a virus, is it stealing cycles? Maybe instead of 1/10th of a second it's 1/5 of a second because of the encryption it was doing on a file. Encryption takes a lot of processing power. Now instead of 20 feet you've traveled 30 feet so now you're doing more like 90 MPH instead of 60. It could still say you did that in 1/10th of a second. Who knows.

      These systems have to be certified. Certification is a bitch. If it isn't as it is certified, it really shouldn't be believed. Even radar, they must do a calibration before and after their session. There's a whole protocol. Cop has to be trained on it, etc. See "beating the radar rap" book. This is like a thermometer that is calibrated to 100C. Mercury continues beyond that, so what it is 1/4" beyond that? A lot of people would be tempted to say 105C or something. The answer is we don't know because it isn't calibrated to that point. Same thing here, it's not calibrated and we shouldn't trust it. They must throw them all away.

    60. Re:For once by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Not at all true. (West Coast US) From personal experience, the Magistrate will not drop the matter, even when presented with clear evidence that the infraction is invalid. They tend to haggle, reduce the fine, redefine the offense, etc In one case I had the fine reduced from $250 to $1 (one). When I pushed the Magistrate to let go of the conviction, she countered that I could take it up with a Superior Court Judge by demanding a formal trial. A process requiring significant filing fees, and hiring a civil attorney. One dollar was the final offer - take it or leave it.

      The Magistrate will not let go of a potential conviction, even if the fine is $1 because that is how a they metamorphose into a Judge. The conviction record is an extremely important component of their career advancement.

    61. Re: For once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I appreciate your disappointment at your treatment, but why do you equate the (apparently career-minded) behaviour of a magistrate in the US with the conduct of a court in Australia? How does this form a basis for your claim that the parent post is not true?!

    62. Re:For once by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Not at all true. (West Coast US)

      We're talking about Australia here. In Australia, the courts place the burden of evidence on the accuser, this means the prosecution must present solid evidence for the case to be ruled in their favour.

      They tend to haggle, reduce the fine, redefine the offense, etc In one case I had the fine reduced from $250 to $1 (one).

      This does not happen in Australia. The penalty you're presented with is the minimum penalty that can be enforced. Going to court for a dismissal is an all or nothing affair. You either walk out with no ticket or a ticket plus court costs. The only way a judge can change the penalty is to increase it.

      In fact, I'd consider a legal system where you can negotiate your penalties to be corrupt in the extreme, the kind of thing I see in developing nations.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Some justice served by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This makes me happy. :-)

    1. Re:Some justice served by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, says right in the summary that the tickets will be reissued. The company that bribed the officials who let them put in the cameras (with steak dinners maybe) will likely be breathing down the necks of the officials until they get them reissued. Then the taxpayers will be on the hook for the costs of upgrading the systems to windows 10. And the red light cam company will use it somehow to justify lowering yellow light times.

    2. Re:Some justice served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am hoping that the primary takeaway is really sinking in to the minds of our leaders.

      The push for many years has been that encryption is a shield for criminals, and that the tech industry is obligated to ensure that the government can bypass it whenever they please, in order to protect us all from crime.

      To that end, the key players have not only erected legal barriers against strong encryption in key parts of the industry, but also sat on top of exploits and weaponized them.

      Now they reap the whirlwind. Those weaknesses impact critical infrastructure, on which our leaders also depend. The financial industry is no exception. Everyone is a potential target here.

      Maybe, as these problems continue, they will realize precisely how much they need strong encryption (with no backdoors) to be the standard throughout the tech industry. (And also immediate disclosure of vulnerabilities, by intelligence agencies to the respective vendors, when they are discovered. Sheesh.).

    3. Re:Some justice served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does encryption have to do with an idiot service technician who doesn't know that his thumbdrive is infected? APPS! MOOOOO!

    4. Re:Some justice served by skirmish666 · · Score: 1

      That does not mean they...won't not be re-issued

      Actually, I get the feeling it says they won't be re-issued.

      --
      Sigger than your average
    5. Re:Some justice served by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      That company is in serious trouble, hacking a computer network is a serious crime and they failed to notify the government when a policing system was corrupted and hence are now guilty of the crime of accessory after the fact. They should have reported it within 24 hours, a policing system to protect the public had been compromised, and they should be held legally liable, not just for the speeding ticket failure but also for not reporting a computer crime and allowing it to spread.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Some justice served by dwywit · · Score: 1

      As another poster mentioned, it will only take one person to take his/her ticket to court, and the case found in favour of the defendant, for all the tickets to be dropped. I'd like to see the contract's terms - especially the penalty clauses and termination triggers.

      This isn't america - Australia appoints magistrates and judges, we don't elect them, so they tend to be apolitical, so our courts don't automatically side with the govt, or its officials.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    7. Re:Some justice served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, that people who drove selfishly and recklessly enough to be caught by a camera get off free? How is that "justice served"?

      There are 4.3 million drivers in Victoria. Of those, 99.8% drove with sufficient respect for the laws and rules of the road not to get flashed by a camera. Where's the justice for them?

    8. Re: Some justice served by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You're just making that, aren't you?

      I'm curious, which specific statutes did they break, in that jurisdiction?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:Some justice served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure thing, buddy, because all of those goddamned red light cameras are 100% accurate, and couldn't possibly be fudging on the law just to reap more revenue from bogus tickets. They're a fucking CANCER, just like all the goddamned surveillance cameras popping up everywhere. Oh and by the way if you think I believe for even ONE SECOND that you NEVER break ANY traffic law, then you're an idiot -- and a LIAR. You speed like everyone else. You roll stop signs when no one is looking, just like EVERYONE ELSE. You fuck with your goddamned phone when you should have BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL and paying attention to the road. And so on. Fuck you.

  3. Holy negation Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Doesn't mean they won't not be reissued" -- I can barely parse that.

    1. Re:Holy negation Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, did creimer write that?

    2. Re: Holy negation Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three negatives means a negative so they will not be reissued but your STD test still came back positive

    3. Re: Holy negation Batman! by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      It means someone went to public school.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    4. Re:Holy negation Batman! by alexo · · Score: 1

      "Doesn't mean they won't not be reissued" -- I can barely parse that.

      This doesn't happen to people that won't not update their parser.

    5. Re:Holy negation Batman! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Jesus, did creimer write that?

      Nope. But I understood it perfectly. Kinda like how I understood this comic. A bit scary sometimes.

      http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/cargo-comedy

    6. Re:Holy negation Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But I understood it perfectly. "

      No, you didn't. You lack the self-awareness to know you're wrong.

    7. Re:Holy negation Batman! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Show us you don't care, then you can brag even more about all the ad revenues and clicks you get because of us.

      Not about right or wrong. Being able to see a pattern, fill in the gaps and come to the correct conclusion is a gift. It's like looking at a quadratic equation and correctly drawing the parabola on the graph without finding the coordinates.

    8. Re:Holy negation Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....a gift, like that mess of a reply? Guess you got your Python CSV scripts mixed up, huh dipshit?

      "Being able to see a pattern, fill in the gaps and come to the correct conclusion is a gift. "

      Oh wow, yeah, sure creimer, you're a fucking Fields medalist. Who checks if you arrived at the correct conclusion?

      " It's like looking at a quadratic equation"

      Except that's not what we're talking about here, is it, you fat fucking lying sack of manure?

    9. Re: Holy negation Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the affiliate link Creimer? Come on, don't let us down. A mans gotta eat randyTPB.jpg.

  4. Won't not by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They really do speak the Queen's English down there.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Won't not by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      That does not mean they won't not be re-issued

      going for the triple negative, technically I think this means they will not be re-issued, but I'm sure that's not what the Blue footed Boobie (that's what they call Bobbies down under, heard it on the BBC once, must be true) intended.

    2. Re:Won't not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed we do. Perhaps it's an innovation from our indigenous languages or from the Portuguese-speaking sailors who shipwrecked off the coast of Geelong 100 years or so before Captain Cook.

      Anyway, I'm not surprised. (Posting AC for obvious reasons) I worked at a government department in Victoria which had been infected by Conficker some time in 2010, possibly through not deploying security patches to their Windows XP environment.

    3. Re: Won't not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been here half a century, never heard that one. I have seen the boobies in the Galapagos though.

    4. Re:Won't not by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Thanks to the amazing reporting of Yahoo! news.
      I guess they can't handle it when a press release is live video they can't copy and paste.

    5. Re: Won't not by alexo · · Score: 1

      Been here half a century, never heard that one. I have seen the boobies in the Galapagos though.

      I have never been to the Galapagos so I cannot comment on the boobies, but I've seen some great tits in Europe.

    6. Re: Won't not by tsa · · Score: 1

      I always have them in my garden, flying around and being busy. Europe is one big porn set.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re: Won't not by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Not the same since George died :(

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re: Won't not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cecil Rhodes?

  5. how did this spread? by will_die · · Score: 1

    So how did this work. Are the camera set to automatically execute when a USB is plugged in or did the person who stick it manually execute the program?

    1. Re:how did this spread? by The+Raven · · Score: 1

      The camera SYSTEM isn't connected to the Internet. But they're connected to each other, and the system has Windows hosts on it... probably the C&C machines that collect the video feeds.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    2. Re:how did this spread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how did this work. Are the camera set to automatically execute when a USB is plugged in or did the person who stick it manually execute the program?

      I would suspect that the infected USB had several mechanisms to once a system is vulnerable try to deliver the payload, being not connected to the internet and missing some updates any gadget running windows have a myriad of attack vectors to choose from.

      Having done some development with vending machines and kiosk alike systems that "can't" (read it as expensive) connect to the internet, we have found that the cheapest and simplest form to collect the data in place from the gadget and deliver it to the analysts is to provide the maintenance guy with an usb stick that runs an executable that copies the data files, I must emphasis the "cheapest and simple" part. Just plug and tap/doubleclick the icon with the company logo, then deliver the usb stick to the central.

      The weak link in the data transport chain is clear: the executable can be infected at the central or if the maintenance guy plugged it into some random or personal infected computer for personal use.

    3. Re:how did this spread? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      The camera SYSTEM isn't connected to the Internet.

      That's what they say...

      But then how is the camera data communicated to the Mother Ship?

      Of course they are connected to some kind of Intranet perhaps? And is this Intranet "air gapped"? Doubtful.

      Or perhaps they are connected by some big network of coax? Yeah, I don't think so either.

      They have their own ethernet strung all over the country? Nope...

      Or maybe by cell network? Oh, that would be received by some network connected phone device at the Mother Ship.

      My guess is these things are connected to the Internet and the spokesperson has no idea what they are talking about. I don't doubt that a USB was the infection vector, but the rest of it is ignorant.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:how did this spread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then how is the camera data communicated to the Mother Ship?

      via USB sticks would be my guess

      Of course they are connected to some kind of Intranet perhaps? And is this Intranet "air gapped"? Doubtful.

      I would infer that by "Network" they reffer to the system and not the connectivity

      Also is not clear if the infected things were the cameras, or the system used to crunch the data.

      Clickbait so much? I guess, but makes you do some mental gymanstics

    5. Re:how did this spread? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      via USB sticks would be my guess

      So some guy goes around to every camera every day and downloads the day's results? I don't think so.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:how did this spread? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, the camera system is connected to the Internet, through a C&C machine that is network connected. That they have a firewall-like server protecting them doesn't help when those that design and administer the system don't think of it that way.

      Can you browse to www.google.com from the camera? No. So they aren't on the Internet. Can you edit their OS remotely from the Internet? Sure. Just RDP to the C&C and go for it. But since they can't get to Google, they are 110% safe.

      Hey, if the people spending billions of dollars on tech were competent, I'd be out of a job. I make my money cleaning up after the incompetent. And business is good.

    7. Re:how did this spread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      via USB sticks would be my guess

      So some guy goes around to every camera every day and downloads the day's results? I don't think so.

      Stranger things I've seen with technology.

      But also could be that:
      1) ticket data is delivered via coded sms using mobile network or another fancy cheap to deploy but futuristic sonuding medium/transport
      2) usb stick is for maintenence (upgrades/updates) or non real time data (error logs/dump files/uptime)

      always when dealing with government infrastructure think cheap to deploy and maintain but expensive for who pays the bill

    8. Re:how did this spread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then how is the camera data communicated to the Mother Ship?

      Well, when I worked for the city govt, the police department only accepted the daily camera infraction reports by registered mail or fax. They had no means to accept or process them electronically.

      That means that, at least technically and in theory, the camera company could actually have an air gaped separate network for the cameras and their windows control computers.
      The cameras of course all report back to their systems over the closed leased line network, but at that point the control computer wouldn't need any connectivity beyond having a printer attached.

      That said, I actually have no idea how the camera company actually operated internally.
      Odds are very good you are still correct and their systems are not air gaped. It just sounds too inconvenient of a security solution for them to bother with.
      I'm also in a completely different country than this article is about, and I have no knowledge of their setup at all either.

    9. Re:how did this spread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over here the digital ones have a cell phone link to the network. I don't know the OS they run on.

      The analog ones have no network, just a roll of film that has to be replaced every so often.

  6. Compromised Cameras by tquasar · · Score: 1

    The evidence is tainted, lawyers will be able to get charges dismissed. Then buy another V-tail Bonanza. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Compromised Cameras by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      V-tail Bonanza

      Bye, bye miss American pie...

  7. Uh-Oh! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    I guess that the infection having been discovered means people will have to go back to placing burning tires filled with gasoline on them! :P

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Uh-Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah we already have the Democratic Party to self-combust.

    2. Re:Uh-Oh! by dbIII · · Score: 0

      Why do you gun nuts think that Mad Max was a documentary?

    3. Re:Uh-Oh! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Come on, that's not right. They only wish it was.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re: Uh-Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We looked at every place they outlawed personal firearms and saw it had no effect on criminals obtaining them.

    5. Re:Uh-Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize throwing burning tires filled with gasoline around traffic cameras was a mad max thing, I thought it was something that happened in the UK (among other places).

      https://www.motorists.org/blog/everybody-loves-to-destroy-ticket-cameras/

    6. Re:Uh-Oh! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize throwing burning tires filled with gasoline around traffic cameras was a mad max thing, I thought it was something that happened in the UK (among other places).

      It's not, and you're correct re: UK, etc.

      He's just a neurotic Progressive hoplophobe who has fixated on me and follows me around crapping on threads I comment in because I'm libertarian/constructionist/capitalist and favor permissive firearms laws and regulations. All of which he despises with a passion.

      It's funny, as I can enjoy tormenting him with liberty 24/7 seeing as how he's given me rent-free space in his head. :D

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:Uh-Oh! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Liberty?
      Not a lot of Liberty in Mogadishu where your anarchist ideology gets played out in reality.

      Besides, you've held up Australia as a false example of a society crumbling due to restrictions on automatic weapons before. It's like pretending all of America is like something out of a disaster movie due to some stupid law passed in California.
      I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I was hunting at the age of 9 - I'm opposed to idiots treating a useful tool as if it's a combination between a flag, a false idol to worship and a penis.

  8. I've read that summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at full speeeeeed!!!! hiyaaaaa!!! hey hi officer!!! weee weeee

  9. But how will they account for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the additional loss of revenu-err... lives

  10. Consequences of non-stop drive by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to cut taxes. Local governments have to scrap for every penny and resort to crap like this. I don't think you'll find any honest traffic engineer who says these things make the world safer. If you want safe make the yellow longer. Problem solved.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't make the yellow longer, make the gap between red and green longer.

    2. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "scrape for every penny..." Don't be naive, government will always want more funding and resort to crap like this.

    3. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is of degree, not of kind. It's like when people talk about government being evil. Sure, all government is evil. But not all government is Stalin and the Gulags or Hitler and the Concentration Camps. The needed pushback to stop a government that tries to expand into ticketing to get extra revenue vs a government that expands into ticketing to pay cops at all is very different.

    4. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'll find any honest traffic engineer

      Correct. The closest you get is those that run the lights back to the control room. The lights, timings, and remote control are handled by then engineers with zero decision making powers. Those that cam make decisions have them made for them by the politicians. "speed kills" when you are much more likely to be going 35 mph when you die than 110 mph (misleading, as so few go 110 mph, but no more misleading than counting drunks literally asleep at the wheel as "speed related", no matter the speed). Almost all multi-car fatalities have the initial impact speed below the speed limit. The solo drunks, suicides and the like are common enough to skew the statistics, and NHTSA counts "too slow for conditions" as "speed related" and sells "speed related" as "too fast for conditions".

      So everyone who lives in that bowl of lies is a liar. The ethical ones quit. I know lots of ex-traffic engineers. I don't know any current ones. The ethics are too twisted.

    5. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Bad. Then you make traffic worse, with a longer time when nobody may enter legally. Traffic gets worse, more crashes happen.

      Better is to have the pre-light. Have the red-amber (both) as the green. You may go, but if you go and hit someone that ran the red, it's your fault.

      The greater the time of overlap, and the increased responsibility on the driver, the better the system will work.

    6. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by alexo · · Score: 1

      Governments are not evil. People are evil. People in positions of power (e.g., governments) just get more opportunities to exercise their evil.

    7. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they could just stop wasting our money and paying their officials more than they deserve.

    8. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by martinX · · Score: 1

      You may legally enter an intersection on the yellow light.
      You must stop on a yellow light, unless it is unsafe to do so. The yellow light is not the end of the green light phase—it is the beginning of the red light phase.

      If it’s safe to stop, you must not drive past the stop line at the yellow traffic light or, if there is no stop line, the traffic light.

      If it’s unsafe to stop—such as being close to the light when it changes from green to yellow—you may proceed through the yellow light.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    9. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      People need to realize that there are worse things than taxes. Taxes are at least nominally fair, in that they apply to everyone. You could argue that some people get taxed more thanks to the idea of progressive taxation, but the counter-argument to that is that those people get taxed more because they can afford more. So it's arguable at least.

      That said, the use of traffic and other fines as revenue generation is essentially a tax in all but name - and worse, it's an unevenly applied "tax" that cares nothing about your ability to pay, and instead is predicated more on whether or not you drive an automobile (and how much/where). The fact that in cases like the shortened yellow lights, it's actively harming (rather than helping) safety, is just the icing on the cake. It's egregious, and needs to go.

    10. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      That's cute - you think the automated camera cares about that?

      It's easier to issue the ticket, because the majority of people will pay rather than spend the time and money to fight it, even if they're innocent of any actual violation. That's what the camera companies, and the municipalities, are betting on.

    11. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by martinX · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's different where you are.

      https://www.police.qld.gov.au/...

      How do red light cameras work?

      Red light cameras operate automatically, day and night. A red light camera is connected to traffic lights and is activated when a vehicle crosses the white stop line. The camera is programmed to take photographs of any vehicle travelling over the stop line or entering the intersection after the lights have turned red. The camera will not be triggered by vehicles crossing the stop line on yellow or green lights.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    12. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Speeding and red light cameras in Australia are run/contracted by state governments, not local councils - but your basic position re: revenue is correct. These things are law enforcement by proxy, supposedly freeing police to tackle real crime, but not really. They're all about the money.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    13. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by dwywit · · Score: 1

      It bears repeating - speeding and red light cameras in Australia are contracted by STATE, not local govt.

      They're also operated under strict regulations. If I was issued a ticket for crossing a stop line while under yellow, and took it to court, and won, then the hammer would come down on those responsible. I'm sorry that circumstances are worse in the USA, but that's not what we're talking about, here.

      Also, the cameras are programmed to take a series of photos, to prove that you kept going, and didn't make an effort to stop, because they won't issue a ticket if the photos show that you went over the line, but stopped straight away, e.g. your rear wheels never crossed the line, or similar.

      We tend to have this this called "a fair go" in Australia, and it means you generally get treated as a human being by the courts.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    14. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do red light cameras work?

      Who cares about red light camera? Better to read something and visit for yourself red light district.

    15. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK speed cameras are used when there is an accident black spot. It's not unusual, given the costs of maintenance and the processing required to issue tickets for it to be revenue negative.

    16. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not because of the drive to cut taxes. It's the drive for ever increasing budgets even as the population cuts their budgets. Two forces working in opposition.

      So the government (and businesses) have to come up with evil ways to extract more from people because these entities fight tooth and nail for their budgets to never go down despite the fact that people are trying to spend less because they have less.

      This type of stuff is what causes revolts.

    17. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      You must stop on a yellow light, unless it is unsafe to do so.

      In California, there is no such law. The yellow phase means nothing more than the light is about to change to red.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    18. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      the use of traffic and other fines as revenue generation [is] an unevenly applied "tax" that cares nothing about your ability to pay

      That's a good argument for making the fines proportional to income.

      The fact that in cases like the shortened yellow lights, it's actively harming (rather than helping) safety

      That's correct, if you're the bumper on a car. If you are any other part of the car, or a human inside the car, the reduced T-bone collisions at camera-enforced intersections make you safer:

      Even though the positive effects on angle crashes of RLC systems is partially offset by negative effects related to increases in rear end crashes, there is still a modest to moderate economic benefit of between $39,000 and $50,000 per treated site year, depending on consideration of only injury crashes or including PDO crashes, and whether the statistically non-significant shift to slightly more severe angle crashes remaining after treatment is, in fact, real.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    19. Re:Consequences of non-stop drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, the use of traffic and other fines as revenue generation is essentially a tax in all but name - and worse, it's an unevenly applied "tax" that cares nothing about your ability to pay, and instead is predicated more on whether or not you drive an automobile (and how much/where).

      It's worse than that actually. The dual rights to ethical government, and ethical practice of law, are certainly universal and inalienable rights in any society based on the rule of law. As such, no government can be legitimate unless it abides by these rights.

      To comply with the right to ethical government, even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when alternatives exist.

      At it's core this means it is a violation of fundamental human rights - and hence illegal government activity - for government to be able to keep the fines it collects. This money either directly pays the salaries of the human beings enforcing the laws, or frees up money to pay those salaries (such as when the funds are laundered into the general budget - dirty money is still dirty even if it has been laundered. It may also provide funds that politicians (who can strongly influence the careers of police officers and judges) can use to get re-elected.

      As a result of this conflict of interest, governments (and third party agents working for government) have been caught illegally issuing tickets. For example, in the US city of Chicago, the yellow light was illegally shorted below the minimum required by US federal law in order to get revenue - this was caught on camera. In the future, we can expect similar things, and worse. We can expect governments to hack their own cameras in order to create false evidence of violations - and similar chicanery.

      To comply with the right to ethical government, any legitimate government will not be able to keep the money collected from fines. Some other means of handling this money must be found, something compliant with the right to ethical government.

      There is a very long history in many jurisdictions of governments using traffic fines to fund their operations. This is a legacy of a corrupt past, and it needs to stop.

      The government of the US state of North Carolina now bars local governments (city and county) from keeping the fines from traffic violations in their jurisdictions (the money goes into the state government educational fund). This is not a perfect solution - there is still ethical conflict of interest for reasons that are hopefully obvious - but it is a step in the right direction. Local governments have historically been some of the worst violators of the right to ethical government with respect to this issue, so at least that aspect of the problem has been solved.

      Another possibility would be for the money from fines to be split evenly between every household in the jurisdiction - not containing a government official - at the end of the year. Still some issues here, but nothing that couldn't be worked out.

      Yet another possibility would be to donate the money to some cause that the public selects, such as cancer research, or aid for the mentally retarded. Government officials with family members affected by this would be barred from any traffic related job.

      It's going to be interesting in ten or twenty years when computer controlled cars have become commonplace - because all of those governments that have been relying on illegal fines will no longer have that source of income (the cars won't be making many mistakes, and they'll have their own cameras to prove it) and that will create huge budgetary problems. Unfortunately, the people responsible for the current illegal government conduct will probably not be the ones to pay the price for correcting matters once the illegal source of funds goes away - nor will the many people today that are victims of corrupt government be compensated.

  11. Oh boy, a can of worm has been opened... by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    One thing is when it targets the public, then "we're going to do something about it, don't worry folks, calm down!". Nothing happens.

    It now affects a gov. major income source - you bet the military is going to be on it now!

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  12. Private Operator by Dan+B. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LOL. Once again the government outsourcing their responsibility to private operators turns out to be (yet) another million dollar mistake, fully funded by the taxpayer. Except in this instance, it's not an expense, rather a lack of revenue, and no one is crying because we all know in Victoria cameras are revenue machines, not road rule enforcement/deterrent. That's why most of them are on straight sections of highway with limits of 100kph or more.

    I reckon they should 'fine' the operator their commission for the year.

    Commission? Yes, commission; the operator gets a slice of each ticket issued.
    You think that makes them do their utmost to issue as many tickets as possible? You bet, about $1bn worth every year.

    --
    Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
    1. Re:Private Operator by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Informative
      The traffic camera company RedFlex Holdings is a case study in corporate corruption and incompetence. Their US division had a massive bribery scandal in Chicago. The parent company, based in Australia, made two members of the board directors and the sales chief resign. Three execs in their US division were fired as well. One of them, the former president, ended up getting 30 months in federal jail because of bribery in Chicago and Ohio.

      If you read the Australian news article they make it clear the the virus was introduced to the cameras from an infected USB stick. On top of that, their camera systems don't work very well, and there is another investigation going on in Australia looking into that issue.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:Private Operator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an aussie and I knew about redflex and their nonsense in the US.

      I am furious that they're still allowed to operate here at home, they broke the fucking law in the US for shit's sake and our own govts trust them?

      And then there's telstra, a corporation that is essentially owned by the party in power... they keep handing them favors, and they're supposed to be free market right winger types, they're just corrupt.

      They're all corrupt idiots here, the govts, the corporations, everything is fucking rotten to the core, the whole lot'll collapse under the weight of all the corruption and a soon to be fucked economy, the rich people will just pick their shit up and leave... "that was fun, let's ruin another country!"

  13. wanna cry on Linux? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

    She said wanna cry had infected the linux systems as well as the windows ones in her statement.

    1. Re:wanna cry on Linux? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      She said a virus has infected 3 "linox" systems, she did not specify which virus.

    2. Re:wanna cry on Linux? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD or whatever - if a file server gives read/write permission to files available to an infected host then they get read and rewritten.
      File system snapshots help and real backups help even more.

  14. Not connected to the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they on some other closed network with its own cabling, or do police do drive by downloads?

    1. Re:Not connected to the internet? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1

      Where I live they are on the internet and connect to central station over VPN. Some of the older systems used MPLS, but I think those are mostly gone.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    2. Re:Not connected to the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and connect to central station over VPN. Some of the older systems used MPLS.

      I know what you mean but MPLS *is* a VPN. Your point was that they have a regular internet service and bring up and IPSEC or similar tunnel over it.

  15. Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It stinks like virginity in here.

    1. Re: Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it does in your room

  16. WannaCry is bringing smiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WannaCry is now bringing smiles to common citizens. Time to rename the virus.

  17. ahahahah stoopid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is too funny..

    mod point 1 relevance?

  18. Ah... Victoria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't not never talk like that, never ever not!

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. A bit of a correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police never officially announced that the tickets would be withdrawn. They initially stated that the tickets would be deferred, pending further investigation. They have since announced that only tickets issued by cameras known to be infected will be cancelled. The remainder are expected to to issued upon completion of the investigation.

    I hope the camera that got me was one of the infected bunch.

    Of course the real question must be; "Who the fuck was retarded enough to use Windows on those machines in the first place?" The results were absolutely inevitable.

  21. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and to think this comes from the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and to think this comes from the NSA...TAX money at work!!!!!

  22. The real story here is ... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The real story here is that the cameras were farmed out to a for-profit company.
    A "sin tax" is one thing and bad enough, giving a third party a chance to make a profit from it hurts everyone apart from the profiteers.
    Time to start looking at the former government for kickbacks or a special job for the guy who sold the farm.

    1. Re:The real story here is ... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm mistaken, that's the most common instance - a private company offers to install the cameras and operate them for a cut of the money. It's disgusting and corrupt, and in my view, that sort of business model should be illegal.

  23. Police State Victoria by Lurks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This should be understood on the background of how speed cameras operate here (Victoria, otherwise referred to in Australia as Police State). The damn things are everywhere. There's no responsibility to tell people where they are, so they're not used as a deterrent like other states, they're used to raise money and they're GREAT at that. More than a billion dollars in the last three years .For a place that has the population of Wisconsin.
    There's a classic one in Chadstone, which is the champion for raising $$$, located just as 70kph turns into 40kph. They must be cackling with glee over that one.

    Also, there's no leeway on these things. 77% of speeding fines are for exceeding a posted limit by less than 10kph (6mph). I've had one for being 3kph over, while being the only guy on a double lane straight highway for miles and miles... (cops hide in the vegetation in the median strip). Good one guys, beats catching rapists eh?

    Fundamentally, other \.ers have called it right. The fundamental problem is that a commercial operator will basically install as many of them as you let them since they get nice revenue from it. The state government sees this as $$$, and can pull up all sorts of charts telling you that they are 'safety cameras'. All the while, this is a state where cops do nothing about rampant tailgating, driving around with fogs + high beams, hoons spinning wheels at every traffic light, failure to indicate and so on... because that would need police work rather than just ticking a box on a form and waiting for the money to roll in.

    Occasionally, just occasionally, one sees a burnt out speed camera with still-smouldering tyres at the base of it. Digitally burn the things? Bring it oooon.

    1. Re:Police State Victoria by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Good one guys, beats catching rapists eh?

      Colour me pessimistic, but it costs the State a whole lot of money to catch, try and jail rapists. Why would they do that?

    2. Re:Police State Victoria by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Or just don't speed. I mean it is a 100% voluntary donation to the government so you can't really get too upset about making it.

    3. Re: Police State Victoria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clover!

  24. Windows then? by 4wdloop · · Score: 2

    These cameras use Windows on their embedded hardware? I suppose a bit expensive but why not? Other than security issues...

    --
    4wdloop
  25. Wrong course-of-action. by rew · · Score: 1

    I think that by suspending these tickets, they are fueling the fear/suspicion that such a virus could go in and fake evidence of speeding. Sure, in theory a virus could have a dual payload: On consumer and business PCs it encrypts the data and asks for a fee. But when it finds itself on a roadside speeding camera it will start to fake photos of speeding vehicles. Right!

    Realistically, worst case, the evidence of the speeding vehicles has been lost. Then the tickets that you've already sent should be followed by: "It seems that due to a technical glitch we lost the evidence of your speeding. Lets just say we are very much convinced that you were speeding, but when it would come before a judge we can't legally prove it. Let this be a warning. You can forget about the fine this time. We'll make sure it doesn't happen again. That is: Us losing the evidence."

  26. I hope there are not rape kits going unprocessed by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    So they can validate some red light tickets can be reissued.

    In my state we have rape kits over a decade old and the governments solution is to try to crowdfund processing rape kits (instead of allocating state funds to that cause).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  27. Nanny State South Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a South Australian you sir speak for us too, well done.

  28. Grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please editorDavid, get a proofreader.

    your's won't not not truely

  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. Today I Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TIL; The word hoon. I'm a hoon.

    Tailgate: Move up or move over! You won't be tailgated if you don't impede traffic!
    Indicators: Why? You can't possibly rely on them. That guy is signaling a left turn. But, he's been doing so for the last 1,000 miles! I dare you to trust the indicator and pull out. Did you mean from behind? Brake lights, that's what matters.
    Blinding lights: serves you right for using blue bulbs and not having adjusted your lights for, ever. A real police state would test the adjustment and force compliance.

  31. Reboots caused selective monitoring by Dareth · · Score: 1

    It could be argued that the reboots caused "selective monitoring" where one vehicle passing thru the intersection above the limit would get a ticket and another vehicle going above the limit would not because the system was rebooting. Since the system was not "fully operational" the ticketing was inherently unfair.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Reboots caused selective monitoring by zaphodbeeblebox · · Score: 1

      The issue may be that fairness does not matter, but accuracy does. By your logic, when they set up a mobile speed camera, it would not be able to issue any tickets because it's unfair you went through 30 seconds before the camera was set up, and I went through 30 seconds after. The Australian laws are very different to the american ones, including using breath test devices for detecting people exceeding the Blood alcohol concentration, random roadside drug testing, and requirements

      Besides which, from the article, they are discarding the fines from the cameras affected, they just need to hold the other fines to make sure they catch all the affected cameras, so they issue as many of the fines as possible.

  32. roadside cameras use Windows - Non-RTOS?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    considering windows is not a real time operating system, I wonder if that can be a defense for tickets where the timing is close (blew red by 1 second). In theory, if the OS is not real time, it can experience delays in processing and give false positives. Any lawyers around?

  33. Seriously? by meerling · · Score: 1

    "Fryer said there was no indication the malware had caused inaccurate radar readings, but police were being "over cautious" to maintain public faith in the system."

    I don't know what "public faith" regarding those ticket cams he's talking about, I've never heard of anyone that likes them or has ever trusted them in the first place.

  34. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and that attitude is why we can't have nice things. The sooner human drivers are banned completely from the roadways, the better.

  35. Triple negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That does not mean the infringement notices won't not be re-issued."

    So.... they won't? Great!