Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday July 28 2015, @04:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the hackable-signage-in-direct-sunlight dept.

New Sydney road signs use low-power 'E-Ink' technology and can be remotely updated:

The NSW Government has tapped the same technology you use to read books on your Kindle to create low-energy street signs that can be remotely altered.

The electronic paper road signs, which have been installed across Sydney, are the result of a partnership between Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and Slovenian technology firm Visionect.

[...] An RMS spokesperson told The Register that 15 of the new signs 'were successfully trialled in the management of traffic on George Street in the Sydney CBD and a second rollout has since been completed in the Moore Park area.'


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by ledow on Tuesday July 28 2015, @07:06AM

    by ledow (5567) on Tuesday July 28 2015, @07:06AM (#214735) Homepage

    If it came to court, they'd have to provide some proof or log of what was showing at what times.

    If they don't, it would get thrown out very quickly.

    The question is, would anyone go to the extent to falsify such logs - with the kickback and the consequences from that - just to sting you for parking on a line? The answer's probably no.

    In the same way that variable speed limit signs across the UK have speed cameras that adjust to the speed limit accordingly (with a grace period on a change, I assume), if you challenge it, they would have to prove that you were guilty, not you proving that you were innocent. It's very likely that there's a bit of software somewhere that stores every change and what triggered it and at what time and unless it was very close to a change boundary, you'd be hard-pressed to challenge it.

  • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @07:32AM

    by davester666 (155) on Tuesday July 28 2015, @07:32AM (#214741)

    Sorry, for traffic tickets, you get to prove you are innocent. You have to show the automated system decoded the wrong license plate, or somehow prove you weren't speeding, or whatever.

    Judges for these tickets assume you are guilty.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by ledow on Tuesday July 28 2015, @09:15AM

      by ledow (5567) on Tuesday July 28 2015, @09:15AM (#214771) Homepage

      Not in my country.

      You are sent a photo of your car parked in a place, with a timestamp. That's proof enough to ticket you.

      Your avenues are then to prove you didn't do that (i.e. the photo is somehow incorrect) or that you had a good excuse for doing so that excuses you within the law.

      The days of "your word against mine" are long gone, with digital cameras in every traffic warden's pocket, and automated cameras throughout capturing your plate, your offence (running red-light, using a bus-only or car-sharing lane, speeding, etc.) and enough categorical evidence that they can convict immediately because they have a picture of the offence being committed.

      Pretty much the only "get-out" clause is that you had a valid reason for knowingly breaking that law (emergencies, etc.). Because, how else are you going to wheedle your way out of categorical evidence of the offence being committed? You can't even use the "it wasn't me driving" get-out any more, because so many people mis-used it that it's now an offence for a car-owner NOT to identify the driver (unless they say it was stolen, in which case the driver is in deeper shit, or the owner committing fraud too).

      If you get to court, the court must have considered there to be enough evidence to initiate the court action or it wouldn't have allowed it. That the evidence may be incorrect, misconstrued, not the full picture is a possibility that allows you your day in court. But any modern civilisation is still run by "innocent until proven guilty" - the only difference is that there's enough evidence nowadays to prove you guilty before you step into a courtroom and your only way out is to prove that evidence incorrect or that you have a good reason for doing whatever it depicts. And, again, in any modern civilisation, you are allowed to see all the evidence against you and challenge it at any point.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:54AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:54AM (#215203)

        > Not in my country.

        Man I fucking hate narcissists like you who say something like that which only has meaning to yourself.

        What fucking country are you talking about?

        In the USA, what you wrote is all sophistry. That's because in the USA only the most extreme traffic/parking tickets are criminal and only criminal cases are required to meet the standard of "guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil cases do not need to meet that standard, just a "preponderance of evidence."