Aussie Speed Cameras in Doubt Because of MD5 1004
An anonymous reader writes "A speeding case has been thrown out in Australia after the Roads and Traffic Authority admitted that it could not prove the integrity of speed-camera photos. '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.'" I wonder if Australian police are as (radar gun) trigger happy as they are in certain parts of the U.S.
Depends on the state (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, we now have speed cameras on traffic light intersections and any random car parked on the side of the road *could* be a speed camera.
In Victoria (where Melbourne is), they are even more tough. As soon as I cross the border to Vic, I don't speed at all.
So the answer is "yes", they are very very trigger happy and in a lot of cases, there was no trigger, just an automated photo.
Mmm... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This won't pass muster. (Score:4, Informative)
Fun times for all. (Score:5, Informative)
There have been cases of cars being clocked at speeds greater than they are physically capable of doing, and a great brou-ha-ha about how travelling "five kph above the speed limit" doubles your risk of crashing (with some people extrapolating that to an exponential curve). (For the record: the research is five kph above the prevailing speed of the traffic, and it's not exponential.)
If speed camera evidence is deemed untrustworthy, you can see a large chunk of government revenue fly out the window; they'll be onto it as fast as they can get their snouts out of the pork barrel.
As usual... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/motorist-wins
I.e., it wasn't thrown out because MD5 is suspect; it was thrown out because the government couldn't find an expert witness to be cross-examined, for some reason we don't know. In fact, I'd read that statement as meaning that the magistrate wanted to examine the entirety of speed camera security, not just MD5.
That part of the story is just a lawyer's opinion, not a fact. "Successfully", in the context of the previous quote, just means that his argument was unopposed in court.
My understanding is that it is easy to generate multiple messages that have the same MD5 hash, but only if you get to choose both messages. It's still very hard (i.e., an infeasibly large number of CPU cycles for most of us) to generate data that yields the same MD5 hash as some other, arbitrary document.
It all sounds to me more like a case of blinding a magistrate with science, than some kind of victory for common sense. (Well, lawyers are involved, so commonsense isn't relevant, anyway.)
Details (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, in 2004 Xiaoyun Wang released two different files with the same MD5 hash. This has been predicted since around 1996, when Hans Dobbertin showed the hash was broken -- but it took a while for the actual attack to show up.
Alot of people said there were _no_ applied uses. Not true. For instance, the following two pages have the same hash:
Lockheed Martin [doxpara.com]
Boeing [doxpara.com]
What's important to realize about the above content is that both web pages are included in both links; the difference between the source files (which MD5 is blind to) is just used to determine which page is displayed. What that means is that, for forensic purposes, it's trivial to rule out the best known attack against MD5 -- just look at the content being hashed.
Thats not to say we should keep using MD5. It's broken, we need to move on. But attempts to claim that MD5 is broken, so we have no idea of any link between hashed content and real material -- that's just ridiculous. We have plenty of idea, especially with human-guided forensic operations.
That being said -- if you can doctor a photo, you can doctor a hash. This is one of the things that makes files hosted on a single server w/ MD5 hashes "verifying" them a little silly...if you can alter the file, you can alter the
The ACT is at least reasonable (Score:3, Informative)
-post on the website the location of all fixed and mobile speed cameras http://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au/speedcamera
-have big signs saying "RED LIGHT AND SPEED CAMERA AHEAD" for fixed cameras
If you get nabbed with those conditions, you deserve your ticket.
Kind of related... (Score:5, Informative)
The thing about speed limits and cameras is that they are set an arbitrary value which, on average, appears to suit the road. But it's like seat belts, there are times when wearing one is worse than not wearing one but on average its better to wear one. My particular bug-bear is speeds on motorways. A nice sunny Sunday morning when the road is empty 100mph is not dangerous. 50mph in the fog in rush hour is. Speed cameras don't generally account for that. Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills.
There is one section of one motorway in the UK that has it right. A section of the M25 has adjusting speed limits and cameras to suit. I would like to see them on all motorways, moving from 30mph at the lower end to 100mph at the upper end. (Why 100 because that's the top speed of some small cars and having cars with differing speeds is also dangerous).
Re:Why MD5 (Score:3, Informative)
The state of Speed cameras in Australia (Score:2, Informative)
A constant barrage of government propoganda asserting that speed cameras are perfectly reliable has dulled peoples outrage of the fact that "blackbox" style machines are generating a massive amount of money for state governments.
There has been major incidents where;
1. In victoria [abc.net.au] many cameras were proven to be faulty, showing trucks, busses and old beat up cars doing absolutely rediculous speeds.
2. Just now 180 speed cameras [thenewspaper.com] in Queensland have been withdrawn, because they are faulty.
3. Speed camera operators have been shown regularly [news.com.au] ignoring the usage guidelines and parking in spots that will provide improper results, near signs, suburban areas where there a metal garage doors in the line of sight of the radar, on corners, etc.
How many people have lost their licenses because of faulty cameras, or been hit with massive fines? (in NSW it's $1400 for 40km/h over the limit). I mean if you're a young mail (under 30) you wouldn't have a hope in hell of disputing one of these, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom.
As another poster mentioned many states have these operations outsourced to private companies, private companies with profit as a motive to fine people. I would enjoy hearing the rabid free marketeers argue that that having a private company with little oversite and no accountability to the average person is superior in this case.
Finally for some fun reading [roadsense.com.au], it does read a bit "there out to get us", but the information and statistics seem reasonable. Showing that speed cameras have done very close to nothing in Australia to prevent road deaths.
Re:Fun times for all. (Score:1, Informative)
It was also a study of less than 50 accidents, in a small geographic area, which is a rather small sample for what is basically the underlying excuse for the blantant revenue raising going on.
Re:If so many people are speeding... (Score:3, Informative)
No, they're not. They're there to raise money. In fact, every supposedly "criminal" activity that is punished by a fine, as opposed to actual jail time, is a crime solely because punishing people for it serves to fill the coffers of the state.
In the case of speed limits, traffic engineers have known for quite a while that the safest speed limit for a given road is the 85-percentile speed - the speed that 85% of the traffic travels on that road. It's not speed that kills, it's speed differential, and having slow drivers on fast roads is just as dangerous, if not more, than having fast drivers on slow roads. Setting speed limits to arbitrarily low values will result in a small percentage of drivers obeying them, and those drivers will present a significant hazard to people traveling at reasonable speeds for that road.
The fact is that raising or lowering speed limits has very little to do with how fast traffic moves. Here, look [ibiblio.org]:
The time to worry about traffic safety is when you're designing and building the road, not when you feel like monkeying around with speed limits. If you see a speed limit set lower than the 85% percentile speed, it's set that way so that the state can make money, not to make anyone safer.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:2, Informative)
Getting out of it (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Invasion of my privacy. (Score:3, Informative)
You sir, are a crack head. Your licence plate is publicly visible. The entire point of licence plates is to be publicly visible to everyone to uniquely identify your car. Your licence plate isn't private.
There are a lot of things wrong with traffic cameras, but privacy isn't one of them.
Re:Good luck... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Correction... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:loophole? (Score:4, Informative)
The people in office right now are Republicans in name only. Don't let their idiocy confuse you.
- A.P.
Re:loophole? (Score:3, Informative)
It also doesn't lack homelessness or drug abuse. Those are just better hidden by forcing those people elsewhere, out of travelled areas, or by arresting them and putting them in jail.
I don't believe you in the slightest about Congressmen sending their children to public schools. I would be surprised if any of them attend anything but private school or home tutoring.
The Federal is responsible for the most expensive social programs in the world, which are also among the least effective.
I really do hope that you are being tongue-in-cheek with your post. It looks like you are, but I'm not sure of it.