Robin May wrote:
(Huge) wrote the following in:


Robin May writes:
http://www.chargenomore.com/index.shtml

Should this be reported to someone?

Not sure it's worth it ... there can only be a couple more years of
numberplate recognition left before all these schemes switch to
transponder-based vehicle recognition systems, which will be much harder to
fake. Way too many people sticking false or foreign number plates on their
cars, or otherwise obscuring them. The government won't let this continue
for long ...

--
CITIBANK ONLINE BANKING CUSTOMERS - check your statements.
Some online bill payments appear to have been made to the
wrong places around 6/Oct/03 - verify you were not affected.

jasonr (Jason Rumney) @ f2s.com wrote in message

Robin May writes:

Should this be reported to someone?

Given that the domain has been registered with false details, I don't
expect they'll be around for long. I certainly wouldn't be giving my
credit card number to them.

It's a poor site, too. Loads of typos and displays very badly. Certainly
doesn't look remotely professional.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:23:50 GMT, "Martin Underwood" wrote:


"Robin May" wrote in message
...
http://www.chargenomore.com/index.shtml

Should this be reported to someone?

Probably - if they're not aware of it already.

The web site says that the device is not illegal. That's probably one of
these grey areas like radar speed-trap detectors, which are not (as far as I
know) illegal to fit but are illegal if you actually use them to detect
speed traps. I notice also a statement to the effect that because the device
is manufactured in the US, the UK importer doesn't need to charge VAT. I
have a nasty feeling that this is not true: the device should probably have
some form of import tax or VAT paid on it as it comes into the country which
the importer can then choose whether or not to pass onto the customer. But
if the importer isn't paying import tax, that's his worry, not the
customer's.

I'm curious to know how it works - but the web site explains why it has to
be vague about the specifics! I remember seeing number plates on sale at the
Birmingham Motor Show a few years ago which had a highly-relective
background that reproduced as plain yellow if illuminated by a flash gun.
They were aimed at celebrities who didn't want their number plates to
reproduce in paparazzi photos. I wondered at the time about the legality of
them given the introduction of speed cameras at about the same time.

I wouldn't condone the use of anything that allows you to evade the law
(whether speed cameras or congestion charege cameras) but I've got to admit
to a grudging respect for anything that allows you to avoid the congestion
charge.

By the way, what's the rule about the congestion charge? Are you only
charged as you enter the zone, or are you charged also for every day that
you're inside? Suppose you drive in (maybe even with your number plate
masked!) and then never leave again because you only use the car within the
zone - are you still charged?


I would imagine a few suitably placed infra-red LEDs would make a plate much harder to read, and 200
quid would buy an awful lot of ( or a few awfully powerful) IR LEDs!!!
I think the CC systems uses high res, limited field-of-view mono cameras for recognition and a
colour camera to capture the overall scene. I would think only the colour one would have an IR cut
filter, and it may be possible for them to manually get reg details from this.
I would imagine the mono cameras have good IR response to help extract details in low light (maybe
the cameras even have IR lights ?)

Now if you want to do it properly.....
Make up a plate where the black areas are actually cutouts with an IR pass filter behind, with a
pattern of IR LEDs behind them. This type of filter looks jet black to the eye but like clear glass
at IR.

Anything that stuffs up Mad Kenny's Con tax has to be a good thing, but I think these people are
rip-off merchants. Everything is far too vague to be trusted. .
And I've also heard reports of Kenny's people going round on foot writing numbers down, although
this may have only been before they got their mobile snoop-wagons running.

In article , Huge wrote:
Skipping lightly over the fact that it has sod-all to do with
you

It has to do with everyone who lives in Greater London: if the CC
makes more money less comes from the rest of us and vice versa.

--
Tony Bryer

(Huge) wrote the following in:


Robin May writes:

Really? As someone who is in central London at least four days a
week (usually more) and who pays the congestion charge on the rare
occasions I drive into or through the congestion charging area, I
think it has a lot to do with me.

You a special constable? A real one, perhaps? Some kind of officer
fo the court? Or just a busybody?

You're obviously not. If you were then you'd tell people to **** off if
they reported crimes to the police. "What business of yours is it? Was
he stealing your stuff? Was he setting fire to your house? Well then,
mind your own business, you interfering busybody."

and that perhaps you should mind your own business,

I think it is my business.

You're wrong.

No.

Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Quite.

That's at least the second time you've done something like that.
Running out of things to say?

--
message by Robin May, consumer of liquids
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
s.com...


By the way, what's the rule about the congestion charge? Are you only
charged as you enter the zone, or are you charged also for every day that
you're inside?

the charge is for "driving in the zone or being parked on road other than
in a resident's parking place".

The charge is mainly enforced by taking the number of all cars that enter
or exit the zone (as this is the easiest thing to do, but this is not what the
charge is for) and by a gang of people who wander around randomly
taking the details of cars moving/parked in the zone. I suspect that
whatever this 'magic' box is it does little to stop a traffic warden writing
your number down in his notebook

Of course the chances of being spotted just by the latter is somewhat
small and you will likely get away with it most days, hence the 'fine' for
not making a payment voluntarily.

tim


Suppose you drive in (maybe even with your number plate
masked!) and then never leave again because you only use the car within the
zone - are you still charged?

"I@n" -uk wrote in message
...
Robin May wrote:
(Huge) wrote the following in:


Robin May writes:
http://www.chargenomore.com/index.shtml

Should this be reported to someone?

Not sure it's worth it ... there can only be a couple more years of
numberplate recognition left before all these schemes switch to
transponder-based vehicle recognition systems, which will be much harder
to
fake. Way too many people sticking false or foreign number plates on their
cars, or otherwise obscuring them. The government won't let this continue
for long ...

Here in Toronto you can buy a transponder for 20 dollars and are then billed
for a lesser amount than the pay-as-you-go fee. The only problem seems to be
that there's only one place to get the transponder and the registered owner
of the car has to go in person to get it. There is only one toll road and
I've been told that it's not much used.
Similarly, it's not that easy to get a Metropass (monthly travelcard) once
the month has started and if you want to use card rather than cash.not all
stations will accept it.
There is only one station in the whole city where you can get the necessary
photcard made too.


--
Kat in Downtown Toronto

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge wrote:
Skipping lightly over the fact that it has sod-all to do with
you

It has to do with everyone who lives in Greater London: if the CC
makes more money less comes from the rest of us and vice versa.

Just like in real life

S R

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:24:11 GMT, Martin Underwood
wrote in m:

I can certainly think of a way that the cameras could be fooled using a
system that *does* require power - the details given on the web site
together which a "well, fancy that" discovery that I made when using a
CCD-based video camera give the game away. But I won't say any more than
that.

IR overload? Try pointing an active remote control device at
a digital camera...

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

In article , Robin May
writes
http://www.chargenomore.com/index.shtml

Should this be reported to someone?

No. There are instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb on the web
too.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.