Australia camera nuke
Discussion
This one even beats Folly Bottom and Lower Thames Street, combined... It's not a bombshell, it's a nuke :bounce:
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=3582678
[quote=Australian Daily Telegraph]
Speed camera fiasco
By STAVRO SOFIOS
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.[/quote]
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=3582678
[quote=Australian Daily Telegraph]
Speed camera fiasco
By STAVRO SOFIOS
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.[/quote]
Yep. I think it might be.Has anyone tried this in the UK yet??
I'd like to know why if Joe Public tries to get digital images admitted, they get no joy, but the scamers can get as many digital images as they like put through with no challenge whatsoever. This would put a nice big spanner in the specs network, wouldn't it?
I'd like to know why if Joe Public tries to get digital images admitted, they get no joy, but the scamers can get as many digital images as they like put through with no challenge whatsoever. This would put a nice big spanner in the specs network, wouldn't it?
mondeoman said:
Has anyone tried this in the UK yet??
I'd like to know why if Joe Public tries to get digital images admitted, they get no joy, but the scamers can get as many digital images as they like put through with no challenge whatsoever. This would put a nice big spanner in the specs network, wouldn't it?
From www.securitysa.com/regular.asp?pklRegularID=2212&pklissueid=499
"The existing UK legislation18, House of Lords Committee report19 and recent Police Scientific Development Branch report20 are clear that digital images are admissible as evidence in UK courts, provided that the digital images are appropriately authenticated. This is the same rule as applies to other evidence in UK courts. The House of Lords and Police Scientific Development Branch reports are also clear that no particular technological authentication is required in respect of digital images - albeit that technical authentication may increase the evidential weight of digital images.
Rather digital images may be authenticated by use of suitable procedural measures (such as those set out in the British Standards Institute and Police Scientific Development Branch documents21)"
(Sadly, the link to the House of Lords Committee report referenced in the footnotes is broken.)
My gf got three points from a gatso a while back, the photos were clearly cropped and zoomed (the two photos were completely different) and one didn't even show the number plate.
Unfortunately I couldn't persuade her to fight it on this basis as the adjoining letter telling her she would be taken to court and fined £1k made her panic so she just took the points. Thinking about it, is there any appeal route? DVD?
Unfortunately I couldn't persuade her to fight it on this basis as the adjoining letter telling her she would be taken to court and fined £1k made her panic so she just took the points. Thinking about it, is there any appeal route? DVD?
zumbruk said:
(Sadly, the link to the House of Lords Committee report referenced in the footnotes is broken.)
its here:
www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldsctech/064v/st0501.htm
its also worth reading the full footnote:
For the purposes of the law of evidence, an image is generally treated as a document. Moreover, typically a digital image will be a copy of the original image stored in binary format in computer memory. In other words, for the purposes of the law of evidence, a digital image is generally treated as a copy of a document. The law has changed slightly since the date of the Committee's report. The following are the relevant statutory provisions in force as at the date of writing (March 2002). Section 8 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 provides for the law of England and Wales that: 'Where a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence in civil proceedings, it may be proved by the production of that document, or, whether or not that document is still in existence, by the production of a copy of that document or of the material part of it, authenticated in such manner as the court may approve'. Section 6 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 provides, 'For the purposes of any civil proceedings, a copy of a document, purporting to be authenticated by a person responsible for the making of the copy, shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be deemed a true copy and treated for evidential purposes as if it were the document itself'. In England and Wales Section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 repeals the previous provisions of Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Accordingly computer records (including digital images) are now admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides, 'For the purposes of any criminal proceedings a copy of, or of a material part of, a document, purporting to be authenticated in such manner and by such person as may be prescribed, shall unless the court otherwise directs, be deemed a true copy and treated for evidential purposes as if it were the document, or the material part, itself'. The general effect of these provisions is to admit digital images as evidence whilst requiring those digital images to be authenticated in some way.
For the purposes of the law of evidence, an image is generally treated as a document. Moreover, typically a digital image will be a copy of the original image stored in binary format in computer memory. In other words, for the purposes of the law of evidence, a digital image is generally treated as a copy of a document. The law has changed slightly since the date of the Committee's report. The following are the relevant statutory provisions in force as at the date of writing (March 2002). Section 8 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 provides for the law of England and Wales that: 'Where a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence in civil proceedings, it may be proved by the production of that document, or, whether or not that document is still in existence, by the production of a copy of that document or of the material part of it, authenticated in such manner as the court may approve'. Section 6 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 provides, 'For the purposes of any civil proceedings, a copy of a document, purporting to be authenticated by a person responsible for the making of the copy, shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be deemed a true copy and treated for evidential purposes as if it were the document itself'. In England and Wales Section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 repeals the previous provisions of Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Accordingly computer records (including digital images) are now admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides, 'For the purposes of any criminal proceedings a copy of, or of a material part of, a document, purporting to be authenticated in such manner and by such person as may be prescribed, shall unless the court otherwise directs, be deemed a true copy and treated for evidential purposes as if it were the document, or the material part, itself'. The general effect of these provisions is to admit digital images as evidence whilst requiring those digital images to be authenticated in some way.
Hold on a minute, it's not so great over there either from the look of this rant from an Aussie rag
Subject: FW: It's Our Country - real editorial
It's Our Country - real editorial
Our Country - YOU Have the right - the right to leave !
After Sydney not wanting to offend other cultures by putting up Xmas
lights.
After hearing that the State of South Australia changed its opinion and
let
a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face
covered.
This prompted this editorial written by an Australian citizen.Published in
an Australian newspaper.
Quote:
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some
individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we
have
experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.
However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the
"politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that
our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do
I
hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to
Australia.
However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our
country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.
This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to
dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have
our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own
lifestyle.
This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials
and
victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We
speak
ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or
any
other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society,
Learn the language!
"In God We Trust" is our National Motto. This is not some Christian,
right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men
and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is
clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the
walls
of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another
part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture.
If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like " A Fair Go", then
you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.
We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, And we really
don't care how you did things where you came from.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you
every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining,
whining, and griping about Our Flag,
Our Pledge, Our National Motto, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage
you
take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
"THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".
If you aren't happy here then f#@* off! We didn't force you to come here.
You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.
Pretty easy really, when you think about it. I figure if we all keep
passing
this to our friends (and enemies) it
will also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try,
please.
No matter how many times you receive it... please forward it to all you
know.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff