Apparently a Court in New South Wales, Australia has dismissed a speeding ticket case because the speeder was prepared to argue that the MD5 hash function (used by the camera to certify that photos were tamper-free) was not reliable, and the prosecution was not prepared for the defense.
Details in Bruce Scheier’s Cryptogram Newsletter, and on The Age & the Daily Telegraph. Quoting from the latter:
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.
It’s difficult to imagine that this amounts to anything other than the government’s lack of preparedness for the case – while there is a theoretical risk because of MD5 uncertainties (would it be fair to call the risk ‘spectacularly, almost inconceivably improbable’?), the same is true for evidence of any kind, even physical evidence kept under lock and key (how do you prove that something hasn’t happened, exactly?). Hopefully less breathless minds will prevail, and this will not be decided on the basis of existential certainty. Of course, since ‘spectacularly, almost inconceivably improbable’ is a synonym for ‘likely, almost certain to happen’ in the lexicon of defense attorneys, don’t hold your breath.
More on the hash function issue here.
Via Between Lawyers.
Update: David Starkoff seems to look at this the same way.