this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
1168 points (98.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

19488 readers
1248 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 22 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Image is European but I'm pretty sure here in California trying to obscure your plate is illegal. Though I'm not sure what actually counts against it, since I know a couple of people with those bullshit plastic films that claim to obscure your plate from traffic cams but not from people looking at it.

They don't actually work, but I feel like the intent behind using them could get you in trouble.

I'm pretty sure obscuring your plates is illegal in most places in Europe. How much anyone actually cares probably depends on specific locality.

[–] Solemarc@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'd be more worried that this could count as some form of cybercrime.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I don't see how. The premise of these cameras is that anybody is allowed to film in public. All you're doing is showing something in public which is perfectly legal. It doesn't damage the camera. If they decide to use the image from their camera to enter text into a database, then that's on them if something bad happens. You have no control over what happens inside of their computer. It's no different than someone blindly copy pasting commands into their Linux terminal and deleting system 32.

[–] Solemarc@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

As far as I'm aware cybercrime is generally: "anything done maliciously involving a computer" intentionally sticking a drop table command over your plates because you're expecting something to read your plate and input it into a db might count.

[–] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

I highly doubt cameras would be able to recognize this as a valid plate.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, because it is a widly known meme and would be considered free speech as satire. Since you did not access the system, there is no crime. If a person was manually entering license plates and entered it into a database, would it be your fault? No, you had no control over that person's actions, and no reasonable person would mistake that as a licence plate. If a computer enters it on its own, then that is also not your fault, the programmer is responsible. You have no responsibility to know how a system handles its database inputs in order to avoid messing it up.

[–] Solemarc@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, so you just get a fine for obstructing your license plate then.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

Some us states don't require a front plate, or you could put it next to your rear plate or in the rear window.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

All you’re doing is showing something in public which is perfectly legal.

no, it is not, showing something in public is often not legal, it - as is often the case - depend on the context.

It doesn’t damage the camera.

it damages the database.

then that’s on them if something bad happens. You have no control over what happens inside of their computer.

no, that is on you, because you made that clearly intentionally malicious input. it is the same as if you had used the keyboard, the input method is really not important.

do you think that if you successfully hack a bank and steal some money you will get away with the defense of "all i did was send your computer some input, sending input to computers is perfectly legal and i really don't have any control over what is going inside it"?

that is 5 year's old idea of how law works.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

So what you're saying is that anytime sometime is filming or photographing someone else in public the person being filmed or photographed is

Responsible for what the camera sees

Is a direct user of any database or computer used to process the images

The person filming is allowed to impose restrictions because they are filming other people in public

That doesn't sound quite right to me

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

So what you’re saying is (...)

no, that is not what i am saying.

That doesn’t sound quite right to me

it would help if you stopped putting fabricated nonsense into other people's mouths. then you wouldn't have to wonder whether that nonsense "sounds quite right."

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I made a joke elsewhere about Amazon's search thing using AI to generate a string that would crash the Amazon server and thought about that too afterward. If that actually worked, could someone be charged with a crime?

[–] Solemarc@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Id guess maybe, if I generated a string using AI and intentionally crashed their stuff, it might be crime.

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm only using the tools provided, not accessing anything that's clearly pointed out I shouldn't. If anything, that question field is specifically designed for me to use.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If I go to a hardware store and start taking a sledgehammer to the walls "I'm only using the tools provided" is not going to be a valid defense.

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not a good comparison, the sledgehammer isn't meant to be used in the store, the search function in the website is, don't be dumb.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Okay, the hardware store has a saw for customers to cut planks to the length they need. There are many ways they could "misuse the tool provided"

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

That actually makes a lot more sense, I'll accept that. Although there are signs saying not to misuse the tools provided. Don't see any of that on Amazon. At least not yet.

[–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Knowingly doing something that could be malicious is still malicious.

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

You're right on that one. Just seems like they brought it upon themselves.

[–] nintendiator@feddit.cl 1 points 7 months ago

If that were true we'd see lots more charges on corporate stuff.

[–] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Where I live, you only need valid plates to drive on public roads. If the car is parked or you drive on private property, there's no problem. The procedure for getting plates requires you to not have plates for like 2 or 3 days.

Cars can still be identified by the VIN which is on the windshield.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Cars can still be identified by the VIN which is on the windshield.

You mean that tiny little plate of numbers you can only see by being up close to inspect? How does that help find, say, a suspect in a hit and run? You're sure as hell not gonna be able to read the VIN off a moving vehicle unless you're hanging onto the hood for dear life.

[–] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

Did you even read my post? I said that you need plates to drive, but you don't need plates if you are parked (or on private property). If a car is parked, you have plenty of time to read the VIN. Driving on public roads without plates is illegal and you risk jail time.

[–] meliaesc@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

There's no requirement for front plates in my state.