Speed camera fines could ALL be thrown out!!!

[Casper]

I'm suprised this hasnt been raised yet!!!!

The reprocussions could be HUGE!!!

All speed camera fines in doubt
From:
August 10, 2005

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.

Mr Lawson had adjourned the case in June, giving the RTA eight weeks to produce an expert to prove pictures from a speed camera on Carlingford Rd, Epping, had not been altered after they were taken.

He said it was a matter of public interest and the RTA should be given time to back up its case.

But RTA lawyers yesterday told Hornsby Local Court they could not find an expert and the case was thrown out, with $3300 in legal costs awarded to the motorist, a man allegedly caught speeding through a school zone on November 18 last year.

Lawyer Dennis Miralis, who has won several high-profile cases against the RTA involving speeding motorists, said the case proved a public inquiry into speed cameras was desperately needed.


"The integrity of all speed camera offences has been thrown into serious doubt and it appears that the RTA is unable to prove any contested speed camera matter because of a lack of admissible evidence," Mr Miralis said.
The case revolved around the integrity of a mathematical MD5 algorithm published on each picture and used as a security measure to prove pictures have not been doctored after they have been taken.

Mr Miralis argued that the RTA had to prove the algorithm it used was accurate and could not be tampered with. He said: "It is our understanding that since speed cameras were introduced approximately 15 years ago on NSW roads, not one single speed camera photograph has been capable of proving an offence."

The NSW Law Society said the judgment could "open the doors" for other drivers caught by speed cameras to mount the same defence.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...1-1242,00.html

[PULLY6]

WOW! Thats a big blow to the RTA.

God I hope some sort of uprising against the revenue-raising by the government comes to fruition over this.

Old news. It is not a test case but if the RTA wants to push it to higher courts it could well be. At the moment it's every man and girl for themselves - i.e. don't pay the fine - take it to court.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Aussie Pete

Old news. It is not a test case but if the RTA wants to push it to higher courts it could well be. At the moment it's every man and girl for themselves - i.e. don't pay the fine - take it to court.

May be old news AP but I dont know haw many people on here heard about it, I know I didnt.

Hopefully it will be another brick out of the revenue wall of crap.

[gozza]

oh well if they get rid of cameras they'll just make factorys install gps systems in all cars and as soon as u speed your bank will be debited

[Casper]

Just out of curiosity AP, if this goes to the Federal courts, would you think the states are in for a REALLY hard time? Its been proven many times these cameras are unreliable and prone to error. If this goes to a federal court I'm betting that the states are going to have a VERY hard time proving the courts that the fines are valid 100% of the time.
I'm betting the states are trying to avoid a high court contest at all costs.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Dangerous precedence....

Wasn't it dropped because they couldn't get an expert on md5 hashes in time not because they proved the photos identification system was insecure.

[Dave_au]

The camera itself is not in doubt here, it surrounds the law regarding the administration of the photos taken.

If it does open up a loop hole, the state government will simply pass immediate legislation to close the loop hole back up again - that happened last year when a magistrates court threw out a photo as the algorithm only contained numbers when it was supposed to contain numbers and symbols.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

The camera itself is not in doubt here, it surrounds the law regarding the administration of the photos taken.

If it does open up a loop hole, the state government will simply pass immediate legislation to close the loop hole back up again - that happened last year when a magistrates court threw out a photo as the algorithm only contained numbers when it was supposed to contain numbers and symbols.

Personally I hope they have to make legislation that makes it impossible to contest the fine at all and it is simply a case of pay it or they will take it anyhow. Its certainly heading that way and the sooner the better......



Why? Because at this point I believe it would be a breech of an individuals constitutional rights... and then the Fed High Court can get involved. Once involved the States will have a hell of a time maintaining this revenue stream.

[Biggoggs]

The case revolved around the integrity of a mathematical MD5 algorithm published on each picture and used as a security measure to prove pictures have not been doctored after they have been taken.

How does that work? Do they digitize the photo taken and hash it? Or are speed cameras digital and add a MD5 checksum to a comment block? Either way, the MD5 algorithm is fine, it's still used in basic cryptography.
They seem to be implying that someone tampered with the photo. Sounds like a conspiracy to me

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Biggoggs

How does that work? Do they digitize the photo taken and hash it? Or are speed cameras digital and add a MD5 checksum to a comment block? Either way, the MD5 algorithm is fine, it's still used in basic cryptography.
They seem to be implying that someone tampered with the photo. Sounds like a conspiracy to me

The way I had heard it was that the MD5 hash can end up with the same key using two different values for the speed. Therefore you can't prove whether the speed that had been encrypted in the MD5 hash has been modified to reflect a higher speed.

Major technicality and very impractical but also a fair defence.

[RED_EL_XR8]

The interesting point presented, (which I dont pretend for one moment to understand legally), was the that it. was not so much the RTA was accused of having tamperd with the photo image, more that the RTA could not absolutely confirm that the image had not been tampered with.

[parawolf]

Rodp is correct in that it was using MD5 hashing not MD5 encryption. What it does is takes a data input stream (the photo) runs it through the MD5 hashing application and spits out a 128bit number which should be reasonably 'unique' to this image. Basically it validates the authority of the picture because the digital image can be 'rehashed' to calculate the same figure. Changing just one pixel from Red=255, Green=255, Blue=255 (pure white pixel) to Red=255, Green=255, Blue=254, will impact the MD5 hash value and show that the picture has been altered from the true picture.

However because it is based on a 128bit range it is theoretically possible to generate two different pictures (two different inputs) which have the same MD5 resultant hash value.

128 bit = 2^128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 variations

However because it is such a large value it is often reproduced in Hexidecimal (0-F) rather than Decimal (0-9).

The remoteness of two pictures being generated alike, is so rare it isn't funny, but you cannot guarrantee it, as it is mathematically possible.

[tickford2001]

probably shouldnt be mentioning this, but im always up for adding fuel to the speed camera fire: my company has been contracted to investigate the rigidity of speed camera poles in windy conditions, and whether or not the vibrations encountered are outside the tolerance of the cameras...it appears that around 80% of them are failing!

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by Casper

Hopefully it will be another brick out of the revenue wall of crap.

Hopefully that one brick would cause the whole wall to collapse. Side effects from that is there would be s**t everywhere.

Originally Posted by tickford2001

probably shouldnt be mentioning this, but im always up for adding fuel to the speed camera fire: my company has been contracted to investigate the rigidity of speed camera poles in windy conditions, and whether or not the vibrations encountered are outside the tolerance of the cameras...it appears that around 80% of them are failing

Sorry if this is a dumb question but how do vibrations in the poles affect the cameras accuracy.

[tickford2001]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Sorry if this is a dumb question but how do vibrations in the poles affect the cameras accuracy.

the camera / speed detector is mounted on the top of the pole, if the pole is moving the accuracy can be compromised

although it appears that the movement usually results in an "error" being returned rather than a false reading, so its probably in the publics favour most of the time...but still, it raises yet another issue in an already troubled system

[MustangNicko]

Originally Posted by tickford2001

the camera / speed detector is mounted on the top of the pole, if the pole is moving the accuracy can be compromised

although it appears that the movement usually results in an "error" being returned rather than a false reading, so its probably in the publics favour most of the time...but still, it raises yet another issue in an already troubled system

So your saying that if i take my exhaust system off, just having open headers, then scream past the camera i should be allright? hehe

[Walkinshaw]

People are nieve if they think state gov's will push very very hard to not let this set a precedence. VERY HARD.

[T_Terror]

Wouldnt it be great if there was a class action that accepted donations to push this to the highest court.

I know id have a grand to back it up straight away.

[MITCHAY]

Hell yeah id back it up to.

[347Stroker]

Originally Posted by tickford2001

the camera / speed detector is mounted on the top of the pole, if the pole is moving the accuracy can be compromised

although it appears that the movement usually results in an "error" being returned rather than a false reading, so its probably in the publics favour most of the time...but still, it raises yet another issue in an already troubled system

So thats why the Doof Doof boys have such big sub woofers....lots of vibrations....

Once they have found an expert they can call to show how md5 hashes work this defence won't work anymore will it?

[EL_futuraistic]

I am not going to pretend i understand much of the technobabble in this thread, but it certainly sounds entirely possible. And i guess its the old to prove "beyond ALL reasonable doubt" which clearly the RTA admits they cannot.

Im sure this will spark all manner of law suits.... but ppl would be well within their rights.

[MITCHAY]

Mate i have no idea either but if it gets me out of a ticket should i visit NSW then i dont care lol.

[whippet_zetec]

what I find funny is that there are a number of States in America that are actually banning Police Services from using Speed Cameras...when I was in California in May there was an article I was reading saying it was banned in that State and others were following, and the cameras were being removed on the basis that they believed that they no longer proved to be a safety feature on the road and just a revenue raiser, hence the argument that they are there to save lives (not raise cash) just wasnt working.

[Des]

Does anybody know the actual law inregards to using digital or other imaging devices? I've been told by the guys who installed our security cameras and such that you need to be very careful with storing the imaged medium (video in my case, digital and analogue). I know the RTA have the ability to view images in different modes, infared and such. Is this actually "altering" the initial image taken? If the initial image is taken as a normal standard digital photograph, if the then apply an infared filter, does that actually mean the initial photo has been altered from it's first image? This may be a stupid question but I know that law is all about the exact phrasing and wording, (that's not even counting on preceedence).

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by tickford2001

the camera / speed detector is mounted on the top of the pole, if the pole is moving the accuracy can be compromised

although it appears that the movement usually results in an "error" being returned rather than a false reading, so its probably in the publics favour most of the time...but still, it raises yet another issue in an already troubled system

In what state? Fixed cameras in NSW have the speed sensors in the road, the pole mounted camera just takes the happy snaps.

[MAD]

The cameras use the sensors in the road as a primary measure to trigger the camera into action. The actual speed measurement device is located int he camera itself.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by EL_futuraistic

I am not going to pretend i understand much of the technobabble in this thread, but it certainly sounds entirely possible. And i guess its the old to prove "beyond ALL reasonable doubt" which clearly the RTA admits they cannot.

Im sure this will spark all manner of law suits.... but ppl would be well within their rights.

What the math does is prove the likelihood of having two photos which are different producing the same MD5 result. Having matching numbers with such a massive variation possible is unlikely. Consider how difficult it is to win lotto with picking what is it, 6 numbers out of 40 in the barrel?

Imagine picking out 1 specific number out of a barrel with over 300 billion billion numbers. Not impossible but the odds are stacked well against you. The odds, most people just cannot comprehend. It is just too large.