On or around Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:40:05 -0000, "William Tasso"
<firstname.lastname@example.org> enlightened us thusly:
>Tom Woods <email@example.com> wrote:
>> The speed cameras generally get the back plate too dont they anyhow.
>hey ho - there's more than one type of traffic management that needs to be
>monitored in this brave new land - and I have evidence that not all
>cameras photograph the rear of passing vehicles.
my problem is with the use of digital cameras and digital images as sole
evidence. It's too easy to alter them.
I was following a car the other day, and with the nature of the font
perfectly legal when it was made) and the presence of damage
to the top of the plate making a U look like an O, it could have been
interpreted easily as SOO rather than the SDU that it actually was.
Depending on the quality and clarity of the image, it might well not be
possible to tell. If you use image enhancing software on it, then the
software make an arbitrary decision that this or that pixel should be black
or yellow (OK, that's a crude approximation, but you get the drift) and you
can't tell me that it always gets it right.
That's without considering the possibility of tampering with evidence. Not
saying that the evidence *would* be tampered with, merely the possibility
that it *can*, without being detectable, is enough to make the evidence
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net
my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.