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


The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to