Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

All NSW speed camera fines in doubt!

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Gromit, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. They'll just switch from MD5 to something like SHA-1. As soon as a bunch of chinese researchers find a collision or claim to break it with 40,000 super computers, the same issue will arise... The RTA will just start trying to stay ahead of the game.

  2. hehe... too late... sha-1 has been broken :D

    or at least thats the recent claim
  3. They probably won't worry about a technical fix, they'll just change the law to say "We're right and you're wrong and we don't have to prove it!" This is NSW, after all!
  4. It's been the law here for a long time now, here in Victoria. Ever since speed cameras have been in operation here in Victoria, they've been legislated as "scientific devices", and such their evidence, however obtained is treated as prima facie evidence. Which, in the magistrate's court, is impossible to disprove.
  5. I dont like the fact i have to pay for the photo if im in doubt . In QLD when i got done in 98 , the photo was sent with the fine , dont know if they still do it tho.
  6. Article: All speed camera fines in doubt

    "EVERY fine issued by speed cameras could be invalid, after the Roads and Traffic Authority admitted yesterday it could not prove the authenticity of the pictures they take.

    In a double blow to the RTA, The Daily Telegraph can also reveal that Sydney Harbour Tunnel cameras monitoring toll cheats have been switched off for at least three years - and no penalties handed out.

    The revelation came as Sydney magistrate Lawrence Lawson threw out a speeding case after the RTA said it had no evidence that an image from a camera had not been doctored."


    For those not technically IT minded, this is an interesting defense and one that could present a real issue. An MD5 Hash is simply a mathematical algorithm that 'signs' an image. Commonly used to encrypt passwords etc. since it can't be reverse engineered or calculated. But, it shouldn't be used to authenticate the originality of something, since you can simply change that something (in these cases a speed camera image) and then re-issue an MD5 Hash for it. So, having an MD5 Hash applied to a speed camera photo is not in any way proof or authentication that the photo wasn't changed after it was taken since you can simply change the photo and very easily create a new MD5 hash for it. Very interesting. Expect to see more on this line of defense, whther it be a change to speed camera authentication or a new law.
  7. Re: Article: All speed camera fines in doubt

    I read somewhere that using digital imagery, whether it be video or stills, may be questionable as evidence, given that it's so easy to doctor. Anyone who has used Photoshop or Adobe Premiere knows what I mean.

    I'm wondering how long before this will be challenged across Australia, and in other countries.

    I read where a person who got pinged for speeding along a suburban road was sent the photo. However, it wasn't an A4 shaped one. Rather, it appeared as if the image was cropped. He questioned it and sure enough. The original photo had another vehicle in the lane next to him. I can't remember the outcome of it, though. I think it occured here in Vic.

    I don't trust the bloody things. I have a Sigma Sport BC800 cycle computer on the bike and I also have a Garmin Etrex. I calibrated the BC800 to the GPS's readings, and as far as I'm aware, that's as accurate as you can get. The diff between the two is usually half a km/h, if that. I got sick of constantly trying to tweak it so the Sigma was spot on.

    Then one day I got pinged on the bike for speeding. When I spotted the camera I was doing 68 km/h. The fine, when it arrived said the alleged speed was 70 km/h, after deducting the legislative tolerance. This meant that it detected me doing 73 km/h.

    That's a 5 km/h difference between what my instruments said compared to the camera gear.

    Thing is, I couldn't fight it as I could not prove that the camera was faulty, not without organising an expensive comparison test. Besides, the legislation would get me. The speed detection equipment produces prima facie evidence, which in legal speak, means it can't be refuted, or so I was told.

    I would've been happy to cop the 68 kay fine. But instead I got one that meant a $200 fine and extra demerits compared to a $115/1 pt fine.
  8. Re: Article: All speed camera fines in doubt

    That just highlights the lunacy of the zero tolerance on speeding that Victoria is employing at the moment. Given that several different instruments can give different readings, the whole thing is unfair. These minute differences somehow translate from safe motoring to being a accused a flying death missile, endangering lives on the road and attracting hefty fines. :roll:
  9. Actually, this whole NSW speed camera fine issue is really just a beat up. It's not true. Not happening and the cameras are just fine.

    And how do I know this? Because the story about them being unprovable as evidence was run on A Current Affair last night. And that means that it's not true.....
  10. Re: Article: All speed camera fines in doubt

    I don't know exactly how that RTA is applying the hashes, but you're right that simply digesting an image into a hash doesn't authenticate it. A simple solution would be to salt the hash with (secret) idenitifying information from the camera. This would rely on the cameras having tamper proof cryptographic support processor and internal secret key to salt the hashes of the photos it takes. This would be very hard to disprove the photo. An easier option would be to salt the hash with an RTA secret key, which would then leave the RTA only with a burden to prove that a staffer with access to the private key/camera info did not alter the image. Evidentiary authentication will become more of an issue in the coming years...
  11. Lets look for motive. Why the hell would anyone doctor a camera pic to pin a fine on you? I mean do evil little gnomes sit there and chortle to themselves as they photoshop camera pics? The only time I can see that you would get dodgy fines is if there was more than one possible car/bike etc.
    As for reading the wrong speed well that is worrying as I know that my speedo is out (still can't figure out why but anyhow). If they are going to use camers then they do have the responsibility to ensure they are accurate. But this stuff about codes etc is just people trying to get out of fines. It's a natural human reaction but still makes us look petty. Sure if it's dodgy then fight but don't fight just caus you got caught.

    In QLD you get the pic in the mail. I see them up on office doors around here lol.

    Sorry if I sound bitter and twisted but I used to be in the RAAF as a copper and I got sick and tired of the "attack is the best form of defence if I get busted" mindset. The guys who copped it sweet were the best to deal with, no aggro no hassels and they usually got off the lightest too.
  12. Bravo, Doggy, tells it like it is. Everyone wants to get on and tell about how he DIDN'T get caught, but when he does, he cries foul........
  13. It just creates reasonable doubt and that is a defence.

    Even if they bring in legislation, it still is an offence. You would JUST have to take it to the high court, to prove the State legislation was invalid, because it ignored the facts.

    Its the same with a lot of things that require machinery to prove someones guilt. e.g. radar. the only reason majestrates find people guilty, is because the government put legislation in place to say that they can't throw it out.

    But in reality, if you are willing to take it to a higher court, the legislation is invalid, because it's not factual.
  14. Oh well, bullshit laws deserve bullshit defenses.