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.
Don't speed (Score:5, Insightful)
loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of those red light tickets were dismissed in the US for various reasons, some technical, some through loopholes, and some through plain old dishonesty in the ticket system operator. They had lowered the yellow light timing below legal standards to make more money. Outrageous if you ask me.
Law enforcement is supposed to be run by government employees, who have no axe to grind and nothing to gain by dishonesty. I like it like that.
My experiance with speed cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Melbournians are subjected to hidden cameras looking over overtaking lanes. The cameras are privatised so people get paid more the more cars they catch. The situation there is terrible.
Queensland is somewhat better because police are required to have a sign out saying that there are speed cameras in use, however this sign is usually conveniently placed behind a bush or behind the car with the camera in it. Queensland is also better off because the police do not rely so heavily on the revenue that their cameras drum up, it seems at times the only thing paying for Melbournes police is speeding offiences.
One thing is certain, these cameras do not save any lives. I remember clearly once in high school a Policeman came to give a talk on vehicle safety he showed us a big graph with a stedily declining death rate over the years, he pointed out the huge drop after the introduction of seat bealts, then one after they banned drink driving, and a smaller drop after the introduction of airbags. My hand immediently shot up and I asked him when speed cameras were introduced, my teachers just laughed and he never answered the question.
Re:Why MD5 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
If so many people are speeding... (Score:1, Insightful)
Many studies show that the roads are the safest if everybody is travelling at the same speed.
Anyway what is this concern over speed? Consider motorways: these are the roads with the highest speeds yet are also the safest.
Re:Fun times for all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Zilch.
Re:Trigger Happy - why do you care (Score:2, Insightful)
No one should be falling for scams like this in 2005. Want to make the roads safer, all you have to do is require a driving test that couldn't be aced by the average 8 year old. Hard as it is to believe, the guys setting up covert surveillance around you do not have your best interests at heart... not when their budgets and revenue streams are in question.
The real concern is when an institution supposed to be dedicated to the public good becomes parasitic on it, to perpetuate itself. Usually that's when the platitudes about protecting the children and ensuring your safety start showing up, and anyone with a brain should recognize them for what they are: bullshit. In the last 10 years, I've been hit three times by "trigger-happy" cops or their surveillance programs for absurd offences that just happen to require cash payments, to them; I've NEVER been hit by someone speeding.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there is.
1. You've got a huge mac truck on your tail that wants to go faster and won't stop for your little toyota.
2. You've got a huge SUV on your tail that wants to go faster that won't stop for your little toyota
3. Your driving down a huge mountain and your brakes gave out because you were a dumb ass and thought it was a good idea to go exactly the speed limit.
Look, i'm not going to justifify going unsafe speeds... I've done it enough in my life but not going to touch that. No excuse for that.
I am going to touch bases on the fact that keeping with trafic flow results in less accidents. I tried going the speedlimit in many places, thinking I was doing my part for the enviroment and saftey... and I get rear ended by everyone and their neighbor... so I have a choice... either go a little bit faster and reduce the number of accidents I have, or continue blindly following the signs and get in the hospital... again.
BTW... going different speeds, accelerating and decelerating cause an unneccessary amount of exhost fumes... so do automatic transmitions. Going one consistant speed for as long as possible yields the best benifit in fuel consumotion and the least amount of fume production.
In my life as a driver, I have NEVER been in an accident going over the speed limit keeping with trafic flow and being a generally safe driver. I have gotten into accidents when going the speedlimit. And now SUVs are so very popular... i'm going to keep it safe and go with traffic flow... cause it saves lives.
Re:Don't speed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well then, if "as fast as he wants" means "much faster than the law allows", then I hope physics brings him some swift justice before he kills some innocent person who is not a complete ass.
Speeding (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
And I'd rather have a fine and a few points on my license than a murder conviction for running over a pedestrian at 90km/h in a 60km/h zone
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
aboslutely right. cruise control is good. just set it on the top speed, and not only will you get better fuel consumtion, you will get less fines.
Re:Good luck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fun times for all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Not only that but speedos just aren't that accurate so you can think you're dead on the limit but actually be 4km/h over.
Cheers
Stor
Re:Depends on the state (Score:5, Insightful)
Supposedly, the power comes from the people. It's not that the state would take it's power away, rather, it would be that the people have not yet conceeded that authority to it in the first place (by voting for, or electing people who vote for laws granting the state that power).
Some info (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's assume this is the protocol:
- camera takes snap shot, uses signing key on tamper-resistant chip inside camera to sign a hash of that photo (with the time, speed, etc. concatenated onto the end of the photo before hashing)
- send bill to speeder (possibly including hash of picture or in some way "committing" to that particular md5sum)
Then, the problem the bad guy has is to find another picture with that same hash value. This is a preimage attack [find another photo that outputs this hash value] and the weaknesses in MD5 were collision weaknesses: particular collisions found and an algorithm for generating collisions. But collisions are just two messages that have the same hash value, not a particular hash value of your choosing.If the protocol doesn't have a way to securely associate a hash with a photo (e.g. doesn't sign it), then it doesn't make a difference if you're using MD5 or SHA-1 or SHA-256, the cops can still just doctor photos at will and only produce the hashes of the doctored photos. So this line of "attack" has nothing to do with underlying cryptographic weaknesses.
[Note also that the weaknesses in MD5 don't affect the security of HMAC-MD5]. Hell, the case should be thrown out since the defense atty had the temerity to issue this stunning (even in buzz-word-addled tech) mischaracterization: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/motorist-wins
Re:As usual... (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I have no problem with Police enforcing laws, it's just when they go for the easy, (relatively) harmless, money-grabbing ones to the detriment of rapes, murders, assault, criminal damage, etc. that I have a problem.
Yeah, the problem is pretty bad where I live, too. Cops whoring themselves out for speeding fines when more serious crimes go reported and with no police response for hours or days.
F*** them.
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democratic approach to raising the limits? (Score:2, Insightful)
We're all from Democracy's (except for the Americans where the corporations like the RIAA/MPAA/Disney/Sony make the laws) so if the norm is to speed, then surely we should just vote to have the limits raised?
I know there's *supposed* to be a scientific basis for the limits being what they are, but hey they've been calculated by civil servants, and lets face it, if you're hit by a car doing 65mph, being hit at 90mph isn't going to make much difference to you.
If the speed limit on a motorway/freeway was 90mph, then tha majority of us would no longer be speeding.
Think about it - you could instantly reduce the speeding figures - and simultaeneously bankrupt the private companies that put cameras around, or the insurance companies that subsidise them.
Hey we could even cut taxes by firing all the traffic cops - simultaneously putting a lot of donut companies out of business.
Anyway, can't hang around here all day, I'm off to read an article about how its been proven that speed cameras increase accident rates.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
speed is a measure of movement. Distance over time.
So are you suggesting we never move?
If not, how do you define when someone is "speeding"? 15kph, 50kph, 100kph (upper speed limit in NZ), 110kph (upper speed limit in AU), 130kph (upper speed limit in france during fine weather), 155mph (voluntary speed limit fitted to many cars in germany)
If driving 60kph in a 50kph zone causes unnecessary fumes (and increases risk of death in case of accident), then why doesn't driving 60kph in a 60kph zone also do that? Should we all be driving 30kph on the motorways to reduce risk of death?
Re:Correction... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok now, I hate traffic tickets as much as the next person, and think the way they're enforced is often all about revenue... but I would take issue with the claim that it's to the detriment of stopping other crimes... in fact, in alot of cities, one of the first things they do when a neighborhood has an increase in violent crime is to increase the traffic patrols, because they're a visible police presence which turns on the flashers often and allows for all sorts of weird technicalties to bug someone for a few minutes.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that reminds me of something I witnessed about 25 years ago when I was a child. On a freeway a car flew past us at high speed, minutes later we drove past to see it, upside down, with a front type blown open and bloody bodies on the ground around it. I'll never forget that.
The World is full of people who are "better than average" in their own minds. Especially young people who think they are the next F1 champion. A while ago on TV in Australia, a current affairs type program got a bunch of hoons together to do a high performance driver training and testing. They all failed because they ALL went out too hard with something to prove. The funniest thing, was that the old guy training them, drove their own hotted up cars around the course much better and faster than the owners did.
Ah. That's why secure systems arent widely used (Score:2, Insightful)
However, because the designers went the extra mile and added some security - some goose can come along later and say "A ha! Your product is defective because it uses a security model that's not effective".
Other great examples:
Imho, this person should have to either proove that it's been tampered, or proove that there was at least motive from someone to tamper it. Evidence againt him: theres a photo of him speeding. Evidence for him: none - just the possibility that said photo was faked.
what a load of bollocks
Re:If so many people are speeding... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not insightful! That's ridiculous!
Speed limits are there for safety reasons.
Motorways are designed for high-speed transit, with shallow curves, sweeping inlets and outlets and long-distance signage. You can make some sort of case there, although I'd say that people need to be better drivers here in Australia.
I live in Melbourne, home of the angry bastard talking on his mobile while turning corners in his 4WD with the pedestrian-killer bullbar. These fools can barely cope with the speed limits we have now.
Streets in most cities can't cope with people driving much past the speed limit. People need to slow and stop all the time, to turn corners, to give way, to slow for the person ahead who's also turning, that sort of thing.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence that "exhaust fumes" play any part in the setting of speed limits ?
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
No I was just trying to point out that the world isn't as black and white as was made out by the OP. His statement that speeding was necessarily worse for the environment was simplistic at best. The world is more complex than that.
No problems with people being caught for speeding.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. Different cars have different gearing ratios hence are more efficient at different speeds. For example if the optimum fuel-efficiency speed of my car is 65mph, and I am in a 30mph limit, then staying below the speed limit is causing an unnecessary amount of exhaust fumes and costing lives.
As for costing lives, I don't think we can claim that. Contributing factor to early deaths, trigger for various things such as asthma, maybe. More lives are probably cost by speed cameras. I've lost count of the number of cars I've seen drastically brake at the last minute when seeing a speed camera late, and either nearly swerve off the road or have the cars pile up into the back of them. People often instinctively brake just in case, even if they are not speeding. It is probably also a contributing factor to a number of deaths in that it's one thing people are looking for when driving when they should be concentrating on the road.
Phillip.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
Bogus physics here. The fuel efficiency depends on the engine RPM (where it has an optimum range)and the speed of the vehicle (more -> worse efficency). If the manufacturer says the car is "most efficient" at 65 mph, they mean that it is the best compromise between fuel efficiency and time needed to travel. If you go 30 mph while maintaining the same engine RPM by switching to the appropriate gear, then the very same care will be more fuel efficient, period.
More lives are probably cost by speed cameras. I've lost count of the number of cars I've seen drastically brake at the last minute when seeing a speed camera late, and either nearly swerve off the road or have the cars pile up into the back of them.
Yes, blame the camera for people who are not in control of their vehicle or keeping proper distance from the car in front of them.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
55(1980's speedlimit)
65(1990's)
75(current)
The road has been all of the above. Is 85 even that much of a stretch for a stable, well maintained car with good tires?
I've driven a number of vehicles, and there are a number that I wouldn't drive past 55-65 in on any road. It could be an immaculate runway and I wouldn't go that fast. On the other hand, I've driven a few sports-cars, and they feel more in control even going 30mph faster than the delivery truck.
Re:loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)
You fix is "make the Federal huge huge huge", when the fix really is "slash the Federal, reduce overall costs", now the States and local government can get more revenue without the Federal taking it all. The Federal screwed up education, proved that social programs don't work (at least not at the Federal level), made the tax situation horrible, and a lot more.
It's very cute that you think it's proper to take money from the military to give it to social services and police. That will not only not work, but they don't have much to do with each other. They're handled on different levels of government, as they should be, and as they are supposed to be according to the Constitution.
Social services *should* be done on a more reasonable level of government, so that you aren't forced, against your will, to pay for them. Like the way it was done *before* FDR, when we weren't running trillions of dollars in Federal debt.
Also, the Federal don't do police. They have agencies of dubious value that are kind of similar to police, but aren't. Police are mostly a local government thing. If the Federal didn't take nearly all the money and then use it to control local government, this wouldn't be a problem. Additionally, police don't like doing speed traps; it sucks as a job. Of course, they don't set the speed limits - the municipality or State does - so they don't get to decide to set reasonable speeds. That fancy assed radar/laser gun isn't on the "desired new toy" list for most of them, either. They often prefer the older one because when your radar detector goes off, *you slow down*.
Education is local government, too. Once the Federal got involved it went to hell. Did you ever notice how the majority of school funding comes straight from local revenue into local government? That's because the Federal doesn't do it.
Emergency services are local/state government, with the exception of Federal agencies like FEMA. Most of the cost is not Federal, however. There is also some at the State level.
Science should properly be done outside the government. However, this is the first thing you mention that might be justifiable as something to be more heavily funded. I would prefer for science to be done in schools, by private individuals, and by private companies, but that just isn't happening anymore.
The lesson is keep your government local. Concentration of power is bad, and history agrees with me (as does the Constitution). Perhaps you noticed that as Federal power increased, personal freedom decreased? Cut most of the Federal and some of the States and you end up with a lot more services, a lot more freedom, and a lot more control over your government. Then you have adequate police and fire protection, well funded schools and libraries, and good condition roads.
People *are* willing to put in to the system. They just aren't willing to put into *your* system, and don't really like having their money confiscated to have things forced down their throats.
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kind of related... (Score:4, Insightful)
I measure mine in miles per litre...
(cluestick for mods: HUMOUR)
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
"These hoons were humiliated. The point of the show was a challenge to the hoons to prove that they were good enough drivers to speed. They all failed."
Dead on, but even after all that some of them still could not see a problem with thier own speeding. They were male and had the "indestructable" attitude (I suffered the same syndrome 25 yrs ago and have the scars to prove it).
Off course we have vast highways over here where you can see a Camel 2km up the road, no traffic, no cops, no bends. Speeding is not a problem in the middle of nowhere, falling asleep and road-trains will kill you.
Speed limits are made so that the AVERAGE driver can make a stupid mistake once in a while and live to be honked at and humiliated. If EVERY driver is driving near thier skill limit then NOBODY can make a mistake, ever!
Re:Good luck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Max
Idea: don't speed (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing is certain, these cameras do not save any lives. I remember clearly once in high school a Policeman came to give a talk on vehicle safety he showed us a big graph with a stedily declining death rate over the years, he pointed out the huge drop after the introduction of seat bealts, then one after they banned drink driving, and a smaller drop after the introduction of airbags. My hand immediently shot up and I asked him when speed cameras were introduced, my teachers just laughed and he never answered the question.
I see people go through the most insane and convoluted justifications for why something preventing them from speeding is bad.
Why on earth just not speed? I've never gotten a ticket in my life or worried about "sneaky cops" or "rigged cameras". I use the simple expedient of not speeding. It's not that big a deal. If you're doing 85 mph in a 70 zone, for example, you're getting there 21% faster -- big deal. In exchange, you risk the lives and property of others, your own life and property (which, I guess, is up to you to do if you want), and have to worry about speed traps constantly.
I know, I know. You're a "skilled driver", and the speed doesn't affect you at all. Everyone's a "skilled driver" in their own perception. When you hit someone, it still jacks the impact damage way up.
Re:Good luck... (Score:1, Insightful)
On the other hand my father had a tire blow out on his van going about the same speed and ended up going through the median (grassy ditch between the two sides of that highway) and stopping on the other side facing opposing traffic. The jolting from going through the ditch cracked one of his vertebrae. Just goes to show you that a safe speed is highly dependent on who's doing the driving.
Re:Oh Yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good luck... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a ridiculous question - dogs, cats, etc. are legally property. People are not. Of course I'd feel badly running over a cat or other cuddly animal, but if it's between that and losing control of the vehicle, causing perhaps thousands of dollars in damage or worse, injuring someone, the cat doesn't get a second thought at the moment. Certainly I avoid animals on the road where possible. However, the most important part of driving is judgement, and that means knowing when you just have to suck it up and barrel over someone's pet in the road for the greater good.
Re:Good luck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Did the Intrepid and the van have the same mass, the same center of gravity?
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but on a four lane highway, where the most severe turn is about 30 degrees per mile, which is the 'unsafe speed'?
The answer is: any speed other than the one all the other vehicles are moving at.
Numerous studies have shown that the most important factor in reducing the total number of accidents on highways is to get all of the vehicles moving at about the same speed. Driving the speed limit when everyone else is going 10 over is dangerous. Driving 10mph faster than everyone else is dangerous.
Higher absolute speed increases the severity of injuries in case of an accident, different roadways also impose a natural maximum (though the US Interstates were mostly designed for 80mph traffic, since the speed limit was 70mph when they were constructed), and weather conditions can change things dramatically, but the most important consideration in minimizing accidents is getting all of the cars moving at close to the same speed.
If you're the granny with cars whizzing by to the left and right, you're a hazard, even if you're going the speed limit. If you're the punk passing everyone and weaving through traffic, you're a hazard, even if your car is perfectly capable of handling the speed on that road. In both cases, it doesn't even matter how good of a driver you may or may not be... if your actions may surprise another driver, then you'll eventually cause an accident.
Re:Oh Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:loophole? (Score:2, Insightful)
Money is money. It doesn't matter where the seperation is, at some point, n dollars are going to be allocated to the military and m dollars to social services and police. You're going to have to take money from military and give it to social services and police, or vice versa.
Social services *should* be done on a more reasonable level of government, so that you aren't forced, against your will, to pay for them. Like the way it was done *before* FDR, when we weren't running trillions of dollars in Federal debt.
It's funny how the pro-welfare Democrats can balance the budget, but the anti-(personal) welfare Republicans can't. Perhaps that indicates that the debt isn't really a welfare problem.
Perhaps you noticed that as Federal power increased, personal freedom decreased?
Depends on whether you're white or black. If you're white, your right to lynch black people decreased. If you're black, your right not to be lynched and to enjoy the basic rights of man increased.
Re:My experiance with speed cameras (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. The amount of fuel the engine burns depends on the RPM and more importantly, on the throttle setting. And how far you have to open the throttle (that means: push down on the accelerator) to maintain a given RPM depends on the load put on the engine. And wind resistance is a factor in the load that grows with v^2.
This lowers the time spent burning fuel...
"Sorry officer, I was speeding because I need to get to the next gas station before I run out of gas."
Time doesn't really factor into the equations. To get from point A to point B, you need to spend X energy in order to overcome various types of friction, most of which depend on the velocity (rolling friction of your tires with v^1, wind friction with v^2). So, the faster you want to go from point A to point B, the more energy you need to expend.
Re:Good luck... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most drivers are not rational. (Same for most humans.)
We want to avoid catastrophic harm to $animal... and so try to get out of the way. Or, we may worry that it's a hard obstacle and reflexively swerve so as not to hit it.
I am very intellectually aware that I would MUCH rather run over a cat or small dog than run my car off the road into a light pole
Re:I'd agree with you... (Score:3, Insightful)
But the military have lost on paper something like 16 billion dollars in the past 10 years. Some of that has been from abuse of DoD credit cards, some probably got swiped, some probably just got lost in the paper shuffle.
That's 1.6 Billion out of 400-500 billion(depending on how you figure it) discretionary spending? Translation:
And the waste is, in many ways, an estimate. It costs money to catch them, money to prosecute, money to collect(which you might not be able to do).
Trust me. Whenever possible, we get the money back when fraud is caught.