On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:28:49AM +1000, Greg Rose wrote: > > If they could do that reliably, they wouldn't need the toll thingy, nu? I > have been told by someone in the photo-enforcement industry that their > reliability is only around 75%, and they're very expensive, and ... anyway, > not a viable solution to the problem given the current economics. But to a > weekly commuter over one of the bridges in New York, for example, it's > $1000 per year. >
Just today I read the following remark by Brad Delong on Eric Rescorla's Web site <http://tinyurl.com/3aw8a>: The IRS's comparative advantage is using random terror to elicit voluntary compliance with the tax code on the part of relatively rich people. Doesn't a similar principle apply here? Let's grant, as you say, that the system is only 75% effective, and perhaps the expense prevents us from deploying it at every lane so that the probability of catching a cheater is, say, only 40%. If we make the fine for cheating $5000 and/or 6 months in jail, then the cheater's expected savings, considering just the fine, is -$1994, assuming a $10 toll. That seems like a pretty good deterrent to me. jcs --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]