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.

Norway cops pursue driver in cyberspace

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' at netrider.net.au started by MrFerret, Dec 1, 2006.

  1. #1 MrFerret, Dec 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2016
  2. That's sort of been happening here. I went to a car club meeting (internet based club) once, and the police and RTA magically turned up not long after and closed off the carpark and started inspecting cars......that was about 8 years ago now.
    It was a public carpark, so I locked my car, called a mate for a lift and picked the car up later.

    Regards, Andrew.
  3. I am sure that he could have got away with saying that someone gave him the video... Would have been a possibility. I mean, how smart are the cops, they are giving a guy a fine based on video evidence that says he got upto 240km/h yet, they can only prove that he was doing and average speed of 139. I think the guy did quite well for himself haha :LOL:
  4. Trouble is they can calculate your speed by measuring the time you take to get from place to place and can book you on the average speed alone (think Hume Freeway cameras).

    I suggest you think carefully before posting street racing videos, the only thing that stops them is the time taken to work it out BUT they might decide to grab a couple of people to prove they can do it and with your luck it could be you who gets picked from the bunch.

    I await the day the put speed cameras at each end of the Spurs & GOR to measure the time you take to get from one end to the other :roll:
  5. i wonder at what stage the idiot displayed his license plate?? don't get me wrong, i'm no lawyer i didn't even finish school, but 90% of traffic offences are guilty until proven innocent and it's generally not that much of a challenge to insist upon several bits of evidence and physical proof. there has to be more to it. just because you've put video's on the net that are traceable to your i.p is by no means proof that you've done anything wrong. the only proof an i.p can provide is that at one stage you had access to said website, said video. different if you're hosting a kiddy p0rn server from your lounge room.
  6. Fair to say in most cases they'd would not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt who riding/driving unless someone was talking or shown in the video. This clown sounds like he was yapping away during the video.
  7. Two points.
    You are 100% correct that they would have needed proof of some sort, but that could be anything. A distinctive jacket, helmet, voice (as you said) paint job etc... that would be enought to I.D. the bike and or rider and coupled with the I.P. address enabling you to find the house where said bike is garaged.....nuff said!

    The second point you also touch on once again correctly, almost. Most (not all) traffic offences are offences of strict liabilty. In other words, if I saw you do it, you are guilty. Period. Evidence would not help and is not necessary. The only way evidence would be used is to prove you didn't actually do (whatever it is) and therefore are not guilty.

    Eg: Your car was NOT on the road at the time in THAT place.
    If your car WAS on the road at THAT place, you are guilty.

    Don't put yourself down, you understand the basics better than some lawyers! :p
  8. Just don't have any piece of your vehicle visible in the video.

    "Well officer, I strapped a camera to my pet pidgeon here, and that's where that footage must have come from..."
  9. What if he claims that he dubbed his voice over the original track? Not too hard to do with today's software.
  10. I don't know law but how could they tell when the 'offence' had taken place.

    If would be difficult to lay charges without the date the offence had allegedly taken place. How can you give an alibi?
  11. Think again. How about if I decide to slow the video down, or speed it up for effect. Cut out the bits that are boring etc. They can't be sure of the full life of the evidence, so how can they prosecute based on it?

    I'd be up for this fight with the Police - of course I have a free & very experienced barrister :grin:
  12. Ok, now lets see.

    The Police get a warrant and ask Vic or Mouth for the IP address Cathar posts from.

    They then ask the ISP of the IP for the records That they must keep by law and the account name of the account in question.

    They then do some simple detective work and find Cathar.

    Pretty simple really.
  13. I think his point with 'who's Cathar anyway?' was more that the cops would also have to somehow make a solid evidentiary link between that nickname and the guy's real name... which may be easier in some cases than others.

    Meh, I suspect it'll stay in the 'too hard basket' for the cops as long as people will happily let themselves be revenooed on every public road. I guess unless they decided they wanted to make an example of someone.

    But there are certainly lots of points at which the evidentiary chain could break... and I do think it take a bit more than "we all theed you, you thilly man"!
  14. Who's to say that the person who's posting from this account at any point in time is any one particular individual? For all anyone knows, the link may well be insecure at various points, heck, could even be via some wireless network router in some poor sap's house that has been hijacked without their knowledge.

    Then, as no speed is being shown, one has to conclusively prove that there's been no time-compression that has taken place. Plenty of software out there which can drop every second frame and yet keep the audio signal as if it was not sped up (for an easy to access example, try fast-forwarding through a video in Quicktime, double forwards video speed yet audio is still the same pitch as normal play).

    Might then argue about gearing and displayed RPM's, but that's then assuming that both the tachometer is correct, and the bike's gearing has not been changed at the time that the video took place.

    It all amounts to a mass of circumstantial evidence. Unless you can place the actual rider on the actual bike at the actual time that the alleged offence took place and positively identify an actual speed, then we're left with what amounts to if's, but's, and maybe's. We're also alleging that the person who matches the IP address is also positively the perpetrator displayed in the video, and didn't just obtain the videos for $5 from some kid who was selling bootleg DVD's outside the local computer fair, copied them onto their system and has since discarded the original DVD.

    This is what is meant by "Who is Cathar anyway?".

    Back when I used to assist police to catch random computer hackers operating from cracked university accounts, the federal police had to actually catch the person with their hands physically on the very same keyboard that the current in-operation cracked link accessed account was operating from in order to positively prove that the physical person matched the virtual identity. I remember one incident where the police broke one hacker's arm with their baton when the offender reached to turn off the power switch, which alone would've been enough to cast sufficient doubt on the evidence given that the direct link from human to keyboard to cracked account would have then been lost before proof positive was obtained.

    ...and just who really made this post anyway? I mean the actual physical person. Are you sure it's me? Did you physically watch me type this post out, or are you just assuming that the IP address alone is enough proof of that.

    Of course, in a guilty until proven innocent system of justice that might work, but then again, any individual wandering around with a laptop capable of hacking into someone's unsecured wireless network could also be guilty under such a system. The problem with the guilty until proven innocent system is that it doesn't guarantee guilt, it just guarantees the absence of provable innocence.

    Sure, the police may find some individual, but is that really the individual that they're looking for?

    The above is not intended as an "in your face" flouting of the law, but rather as a bit of a discussion on the difficulties of attempting to draw a provable unbroken straight line from alleged offense back to the perpetrator based upon some random video posted onto the internet.
  15. I cant see them wasting their time chasing someone like Cathar but my post was designed to prove that they can find where it started if they wished to and I stand by that.

    If there is software around to edit things then they can also unedit it.

    Just look at the fun in Werribee a few weeks ago with "that" DVD.
  16. While I don't for a second think that anybody would do so to track down our Cathar, it is often possible to determine speed using motion blur analysis from as little as a single frame, or indeed a single still photo if the shutter speed is less than about 1/500th second (most video cameras use between 1/30th and 1/50th, or in special cases 1/125th). In fact it is easier to do so from a single frame of video than from a still image, because a single video frame is actually made up of two sequentially written 'fields' that give two entirely separate sets of data that can be cross referenced.

    I repeat, this is not a technique likely to be used to track down speeders, but it is routinely used by the military and by astronomers, and if it can determine the speed of a rock millions of miles away in space, or the speed of a military vehicle from orbit, it can do so for a bike right here.
  17. It would seem to me that measuring the speed of a rock or vehicle is dependent upon a few things. You would have to know:

    1) The shutter speed, which may even be variable from frame to frame dependent upon the white balance being applied inter-frame.
    2) The distance of the object being blurred
    3) Magnification level of the lens
    4) Barrel distortion factor of individual camera (ie. fish-eye lens effect)
    5) Camera Environment Vibration effects
    6) Visual distortion effects due to any intervening panels between lens and object being blurred.

    One thing to determine the speed using known and calibrated video equipment where any/all of the above variables are carefully controlled and/or can be mathematically compensated for.

    Quite another to determine the speed accurately from a single video frame with no other information given, and any/all of the above variables operating in unknown unison.

    In short, it'd be a pretty big stretch.
  18. Not really, if we are talking about a typical retail video camera that is either MPEG4 or IEE1394 (and that covers about 99% of current kit), all the required info is encoded with the image data, including the serial number of the chip that encoded it. With HD even more information is encoded. This metadata is there to make cataloging of media easier to automate, not to catch speeders, but it is built into the core standards. I'm sure there are ways of transcoding to strip the metadata, but they would leave a file that was pretty much incompatible with everything else, and therefore not much use. If we are talking about 99% of cameras, and 99% of users, it would not be too hard to do. The best bet would be to use an analog format like Hi8 which does not encode much metadata except timecode. It could still be done in many cases, but not all, and it would be much, much more difficult.

    EDIT - by the way, it does not require calibrated kit, the NTSB often uses crappy amateur video of aircraft in accident investigations to determine speed and rate of descent. The investigation of the aircraft that crashed into residential queens (New York City), is a typical example.
  19. Cathar - why do I get the feeling you've already put some thought into this question? ;)
  20. Just playing devil's advocate, is all. That stuff was just from the top of my head from someone who only has a surface level knowledge of visual stuff.