Traffic Light Switcher Makes Critics See Red 600
An anonymous reader writes "According to a Yahoo/Washington Post article: 'It sounds like a suffering commuter's dream come true: a dashboard device that changes red traffic lights to green at the touch of a button.
Police, fire and rescue vehicles have had access to such equipment for years, but now the devices are becoming available to ordinary motorists
thanks to advances in technology and a little help from the Internet. Safety advocates are outraged, and news accounts in Michigan last week
led to politicians there seeking a ban on the gadgets'." Update: 11/06 02:25 GMT by S : A previous Slashdot story mentions the device, though not the Michigan legislature's subsequent ire.
Can someone tell me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Make all lights go red (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Can someone tell me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want one! (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda like sitting in the middle of an intersection on a red. Sure, you were 20 feet ahead of those behind you but the only reason you're stuck in the intersection is the guy 3 blocks up blocking your route.
It's tough, but if everyone cleaned up their driving habits, everyone would be home 5 or 10 minutes earlier rather than just the poor drivers getting home 2 to 3 minutes earlier.
Re:Is this a dupe? (Score:3, Insightful)
flash demo (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly this is illegal (or soon will be) and stupid waste of the public's time and money to refit this lights to stop this silly company. FAC of America located out of Minn. runs websites such as TheMIRT [themirt.com] and Guns'N Stuff [gunsnstuff.net] The are allowing people to be resellers for $300/unit.
There is a flash "demo" of the MIRT in action here [themirt.com]
Re:Can someone tell me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad, bad bad! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the radar/laser detectors are fine, but the devices which allow people to actually change the system should not be allowed.
Radar/Laser detectors serve a good purpose. Yes, they allow people to "undermine" the law by getting around traffic tickets (if you're alert,) but they also slow down traffic when an officer is nearby. The people with the radar detectors slow down when an officer is running radar nearby, and therefore drive safer because they don't want a ticket.
However, devices like the ones coming now actually affect the system rather than circumvent it. My having a radar detector does not affecy anyone but me. But one that allows me to change traffic lights in my favor affects the other people on the road!
This is all IMHO.
Don't FIX the vulnerability - just BAN exploits! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I want one! (Score:2, Insightful)
I know it's a dup but... (Score:4, Insightful)
While these politicians are at it, why not mandate fuel governors for all cars to prevent them from speeding?
Why not mandate RFID for everyone so that the police can tell where you are when you're a suspect in a crime?
I can understand making people responsible for using such a device, but banning them won't do any more good than those states that banned radar detectors.
LK
Simple solution... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all for hackin', but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not amusing. It's just wrong.
Re:dont some use strobe detectors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, with the availability of technologies like bluetooth and other encrypted wireless technologies, it shouldn't be hard to just encode a daily/weekly-changing code into the signals and give it out to emergency vehicles as needed.
That, and teaching drivers how to behave around those flashing lights (ie. pull over to the RIGHT if you are in the US - I've seen too many people on the freeway pull left, only to block an ambulance that was trying to get around traffic by driving on the shoulder).
solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:dont some use strobe detectors? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm actually sitting at the fire station tonight pulling a duty shift for the volunteer squad.
You have NO idea how much it would save in time and safety concerns if everyone would pull to the RIGHT (in the US). G
lad to know there's at least one person out there who gets it!
Laws won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unique Emergency vehicle flashing pattern (Score:5, Insightful)
They could however instead flash red and yellow alternately and quickly so that it would mean EXACTLY and ONLY that an emergency vehicle is approaching and ALL ways need to stop to give it right of way.
Gridlock isn't dependent on the traffic lights (remembering various stories about New York where the fire engines were in the middle of a block and it would take 30 minutes to go just over a mile.
Re:Don't FIX the vulnerability - just BAN exploits (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. In fact, I'm going to take your prinicle to heart and exploit the weakness in the locks of your residence. Since you clearly believe that if the lock isn't adequate then the laws shouldn't take effect, I am doing nothing you shouldn't fully expect. Five tumbler locks? Come on! You should have 3ft thick concrete walls, thick steel doors with multiple jamb pins, and a cryptographically secure electric lock which requires something you have, something you know, and something you are. Actually, since that makes you the weak link you shouldn't even give yourself access.
Anarchy is fun to think about intellectually, but at the end of the day I don't want to have to do my own policing, I don't want to make my life cumbersome, and I don't want more than a few percent chance of being robbed/burgled in my life.
Of course, my web server is secured out the yin yang, because police protection does not extend to that area of my life... yet.
-Adam
Thats rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
If the government tells you you can't use one of those, its real simple, don't use them. Use it and suffer the penalty!
Why the hell should the taxpayers shoulder the massive costs of building a device like that which would be completely immune to misuse? Does it add $1000 per? $10000 per? How much per emergency vehicle? In a town of ten or twenty thousand people with, say, 30 lights, you want the town to give up a teacher or ten because you've got some high and mighty belief that if people CAN do something they SHOULD?
Thats not Score:4 Insightful, it should be Score:0 Retarded.
Re:I know it's a dup but... (Score:2, Insightful)
What they should have done was come up with an inexpensive radar simulator device. It wouldn't be hard, and it would be something that cost maybe $10 to produce in quantity.
Then the police could distribute them all around the streets and highways. They would be little black boxes and easy to conceal.
They would emit a signal that mimics a police radar. They would cause people who have radar detectors to slow down.
Since they'd probably be even cheaper than speed limit signs, they'd fill a useful and cost effective function.
I've thought about building a 'renegade' illegal one. It'd be handy when I want to pass somebody who's going above the speed limit and has a radar detector.
Why not just upgrade to RFID on emergency vehicles (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely some sort of RFID tag could be fitted to emergency vehicles that would allow for traffic signal control without extraordinary costs. Retrofitting this new technology to the pre-existing traffic intersection control probably wouldn't be too hard either.
Additionally this technology could be used to inform regular vehicles that there is an emergency vehicle in the area. (Provided vehicles were fitted with a suitable receiver.)
Re:Sorry, but this is BS (Score:3, Insightful)
It might be more of a real problem in some local areas. At least in the part of Maryland I'm in (and according to the printed newspaper article), a number of the intersections do switch based on this device. While there are competing systems, apparently some of them have no authentication mechanism. The detector is essentially like a remote control for the television -- blink in the right way and it trips.
While I'm not in favor of hacking into light control systems, it doesn't seem like its really much of a hack (as others have posted the details). If a municipality has installed a system this simple to fool, shame on them for not installing some best practices on locking this down. And, if the DOT has approved a system that doesn't require authentication, they probably need to re-evaluate their approval methods.
the solution (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think these are that foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
The next section is something called the pre-emptive right of way, where the traffic lights that are not the same path as the signal is coming from, get a red light. The reason for this, is so in case the vehicle can make a left turn without worrying about oncoming traffic.
The system works in two parts--one's a transmitter, the other's an receiver, and the system can be set for thousands of possible codes. (for vehicle identification). the odds of something like this working, right out of the box, is very small...you'd need to get a correct code, and hope that no one notices a lot of new entries when it logs.
There is a comapny that makes legitimate Opticom receivers, for 'testing' purposes...however, their testing eqipment is very limited. They do make handheld opticom transmitters, however, they'll only sell them to you if you're a law enforcement/governmnet agency.
The wrong design (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm surprised I haven't seen SPAM offering these thing yet.
Re:Can someone tell me... (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't like designer drugs (where the government has to play catch-up with the inventors), because it was through government agencies that this technology was developed and put into use in the first place. They knew about it; they should have had the sense to officially limit its use.
The real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I know it's a dup but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It all comes down to morals and concious. This is not some debacle about copyright, this is about abusing something that actually serves a good purpose for everyone (when have you heard someone complain about the purpose, the purpose not the actual function, of the stop light?). It's bizarre that some people could use this and actually feel good about it.
Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Naturally, middle-management, in their rush to control everything and to expect their highly qualified and exhaustively interviewed employees to become irresponsible morons the moment they have left the room, will claim telecommuting cannot ever be approved and go on to schedule another meeting.
Re:Unlike England (Score:3, Insightful)
The Radiocommunications Agency (RA) owns the radio frequency spectrum in the UK. Its an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.
The government has no control over the usage of infrared communications.
The "British Post Office" has nothing whatsoever to do with telecommunications in England, Scotland, or anywhere else. It did many years ago, before its telecoms and mail services were split up and privatized
Also - can you provide a reference for this laser broadcast technology? Why, for example, is it not in common usage?
Re:Democratic intersections? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, but this is BS (Score:3, Insightful)
A more secure approach would probably be along the idea of a transponder system linked to GPS with only authorised vehicles emitting a code will be allowed to change the light.... IE the light only has a dummy sensor and a network connection.. when it detects a signal it sends a query and a remote system to deermins if a valid gps ID is in the vicinity.. this way the GPS vehicle ID is not being transmitted 'in the clear' over IR. And you have to spoof two systems and have your vehicle entered in a database capable of tracking your location... right. Of course it would likely have a backup mode of just accepting signals if the querry timed out or something.... but a random combined denial attack and signal generation seems a bit of a stretch .
This is completely absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, the Post Office in the UK has had nothing to do with regulating e/m waves of any frequency since 1969.
Secondly, the BBC has not had a monopoly on broadcast radio in the UK since 1972. There are many more commercial, privately-owned stations than BBC stations across the country.
Thirdly, radio transmission by shining an infra-red vertically upwards? Hello? Moderators, are you smoking crack. Here's a few reasons why it couldn't work:
* Lower light frequencies, including infra-red light, are not scattered much by the atmosphere. That's why sunsets are red and the sky is blue: blue light is scattered all over the sky, red light passes more or less straight through.
* During the daytime at least, any infra-red signal from a scattered laser beam would be hopelessly swamped by infra-red coming from the sun (not to mention other IR sources in a city, i.e. anything hot)
* For this to stand a chance of working therefore, the laser beam would have to be very powerful. As noted above, the BBC's radio monopoly ended in 1972 and Post-Office regulation in 1969. Please tell me, what private individuals had access to powerful lasers in the 1960s? Dr Evil?
So please, moderators, don't mod up a story because it seems superficially plausible. Stop and think about it for a bit. 5 minutes Googling is usually sufficient to establish veracity.
Doesn't need banning! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can someone tell me... (Score:3, Insightful)