Nsw Speed Camera's Are In Doubt

[d00dz]

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.js...storyid=3582678

Seems like the MD5 algorithm doesnt prove anything.

[Links]

How the hell are they using a MD5 hash check on the images - must check the contents of the photos in bits and generate the hash from that.. it's very hard to have 2 MD5's that match - although it is not impossible. They should be running a better hash than that..

personally I think you get a crypto/security specialist in there..

That's the lamest reason for throwing out the evidence. The judge wouldn't know what the hell an MD5 hash check was..

-----------------

good in 1 sense being that he got off.. but fusk him - if he's speeding in a school zone.. he deserves it.. not good - but it's the way it goes..

[d00dz]

How the hell are they using a MD5 hash check on the images - must check the contents of the photos in bits and generate the hash from that.. it's very hard to have 2 MD5's that match - although it is not impossible. They should be running a better hash than that..

personally I think you get a crypto/security specialist in there..

That's the lamest reason for throwing out the evidence. The judge wouldn't know what the hell an MD5 hash check was..

-----------------

good in 1 sense being that he got off.. but fusk him - if he's speeding in a school zone.. he deserves it.. not good - but it's the way it goes..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yea lol @ rta using MD5

[Loop]

How the hell are they using a MD5 hash check on the images - must check the contents of the photos in bits and generate the hash from that.. it's very hard to have 2 MD5's that match - although it is not impossible. They should be running a better hash than that..

personally I think you get a crypto/security specialist in there..

That's the lamest reason for throwing out the evidence. The judge wouldn't know what the hell an MD5 hash check was..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, no doubt they produced "expert" testimony. I think the issue found to be in question would be if the MD5 hash is printed on the photo .. how the heck do you know that the MD5 printed has been generated from that image?

What will come of this is a change of process, like a custody of evidence procedure. ie: if a weapon is seized by police as evidence, the police have a paper trail of where that evidence has been so that it can be accounted for.

[someonestolecc]

I thought it'd be sufficient.. I mean, who at the RTA is going to doctor your photo and then try to generate the same MD5 so that they match?

There would be easier ways to doctor the photo, like just.. doctoring it and re-creating both MD5's to match from the fake photo.

Either way it's the same reason digital photos can't be used in court, but since the RTA is one of those cash cows I think they'll either do something really quickly or just appeal and win.

[ferni]

haha I don't get what they are using MD5 for. MD5 the original image as it is downloaded from the camera and send the MD5 sum with the photo to whereever it needs to go? The fault isn't of MD5 its of thier processes, or lack of.

[Duncan]

actually the RTA's problem was that they did not produce an expert who would testify that MD5 could *not* be faked. So they could not prove it was the original pic

They are pretty optimistic saying it does not affect other fines, I'm pretty sure that would affect all fine.

[someonestolecc]

actually the RTA's problem was that they did not produce an expert who would testify that MD5 could *not* be faked.  So they could not prove it was the original pic

They are pretty optimistic saying it does not affect other fines, I'm pretty sure that would affect all fine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact they couldn't produce an expert is their legal (and practical) problem.

The fact no expert who knows what they are talking about would testify it couldn't be faked is their real problem. It's well known it's possible to create a MD5 hash from a different source than the original in a few hours on a home computer.

And as for them saying it doesn't affect other fines off course they would say that... our society as a whole doesn't question things we're just spoon fed information anyways... go back to sleep your government is in control!!

[cowie165]

As the linky no longer worky, could one of you smart chaps please explain what an MD5 hash check is? By the sounds of it an algorithm that is created at the time of production and checkable when printed or something?

Signed,

IT numpty

[Sl!m]

Saw somthing about this on tv tonight, they also said the M2 cameras dont work at all. they had a rep. saying they are gonna fix it some time this year .. so untill they do, you wont get fined ! nice lol

[Tracka]

Either way it's the same reason digital photos can't be used in court, but since the RTA is one of those cash cows I think they'll either do something really quickly or just appeal and win

unfortunatly this is incorrect. if the image is watermarked it can be used been there, done that.

The fact they couldn't produce an expert is their legal (and practical) problem.

The fact no expert who knows what they are talking about would testify it couldn't be faked is their real problem. It's well known it's possible to create a MD5 hash from a different source than the original in a few hours on a home computer.

And as for them saying it doesn't affect other fines off course they would say that... our society as a whole doesn't question things we're just spoon fed information anyways... go back to sleep your government is in control!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

once again the information you have supplied here is incorrect and I wish people did not comment on things they have no knowledge about!

now the FACTS!

in the original court hearing, the solicitor for the driver contested the fine and wanted proof that the image had not been altered in any way, the only way to do this would be for the RTA to produce an 'expert' to testify to the authenticity of the image. the judge requested that the rta produce evidence/the expert to tell him the image had not been altered.

now, the police prosecutor did not notify the RTA untill 2 weeks before the court case that a expert was required or the case would be thrown out. the RTA then stuffed around and contacted the speed camera company to request one of their experts attend court on the day as requested by the judge. due to the short time frame, a expert was not able to make it to court on the day. (p.s. this 'expert' would also be charging over $1k to attend court). the police requested that the case be held over till an expert was available which the reply was no and costs awarded to the defendant.

there has now been a direction from the minister. (joe tripodi) that any future case requiring an expert be dealt with straight away and an 'expert' be available on the day. Also, when the rta wins after you contest it, expect that YOU will have to pay the RTA's legal fees with will far exceed $4k for the day.

so, the point here is this. the only reason the guy won was because the expert was not given enough notice to attend court. simple.

[satanic]

Sorry to be a pooper here... but the newspapers have also been mentioning the Tunnel Toll Cameras being OFF for the last 3 years; anyone been a cheat?

I'm only asking because 1) it's all very good we are not paying for the tolls, but 2) in the end, all the other tax payers (including yourself) have to pay for the revenue loss!