When i was driving home from scotland yesterday admiring all 4 bazillion speed cameras, i had a thought.

Digital images cant be used as evidence as they can be altered etc. But the police use the photo from the camera as evidence to convict motorists.

I'm probably talking wank but it was just a thought

 

yr talking wank like normal

 

Dicko&Sarah

Why though

 

dunno lol just said it

 

Gatso's are not digital - they use a roll of film (400 shots = 2 pics per offence).

http://www.ukspeedcameras.co.uk/index1.htm

Limitations : Once they run out of film they become inactive. Approximately only one in 4 GATSO static cameras is fully operational at any one time. Some have now been painted bright colours.

 

L8 ECU

Those fucking horrible little mobile things are though aint they

 

Yes, they use digital camaras therefore digital images are produced............but thinking about it, people can be done (prosicuted/convicted) for shoplifting using digital images that "could" be altered. So I dont see how the fact that the images are digital can effect the conviction, but I've heard other peeps say the same as you i.e. "they cannot convict on digital images".

 

L8 ECU

Ye i just thought i heard somewhere that digital images couldnt be used as evidence. Think it was on here actually when someone crashed into someones car and they took pics off there phone as evidence?

 

Well, when there is a road accident involving serious injury the police take lots of pics of the trye/skid marks on the road and pics of other related damage at the scene, they deffo use digital camaras (seen them outside my house), and I guess they use those digital images to effect a dangerous/wreckless driving conviction.

So, I cant see that it's one rule for them and one rule for us - or am I being naive?

 

digital images if recorded to a digital video recorder MUST have digital signatures encoed on them with a algorithim that matches the device they were encoded on - this is somewhat like a 128 bit wifi encryption which must match and is 'allegedly' uncopyable, so the digi sig onthe film MUST match the one on the recorder or else it can be shown it has been tampered with.