Home / Blogs / Business / The Bulletin
Follow this blog:
RSS

Outsmarting red-light traffic cameras

By | October 22, 2012, 3:00 AM PDT

If you’ve ever been unlucky enough to run a red light patrolled by one of those robo-cameras, you know their fines can run up to $500.

In fact, many people believe these unmanned cameras infringe upon drivers’ rights. Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association, recently argued that the traffic-light cameras violate  “several key tenets of a citizen’s due process rights,” because there is “no certifiable witness to the alleged violation,” and so therefore, “the defendant loses the right to cross-examine his accuser in court.”

So Jonathan Dandrow developed a way to out-fox the authorities by creating noPhoto, a simple license plate frame that makes the red-light camera pictures useless. The top of the frame is fitted with an optical flash trigger that detects the traffic light camera flash. This trigger activates xenon flashes along the sides of the noPhoto frame, so that when the traffic light camera opens its shutter, the noPhoto emits so much light that your license plate is not visible in the picture.

While the device components are easily purchased at camera supply stores, the noPhoto works at a distance of 150 feet in sunlight, and farther in darkness. NoPhoto’s built-in filtering circuit can also differentiate between natural light and the light generated by a traffic light camera flash.The xenon flashes also incrementally increase the amount of light emitted to ensure that even with cameras that emit multiple flashes, the car’s license plate will still go unrecognized.

Dandrow insists that the noPhoto is legal because it does not obscure the license plate. He says he has developed a fully functional prototype of the noPhoto, and once it has been tested and certified, the company has plans to mass-produce the item and sell it for around $350 - or what people in many cities pay for a red light ticket. In the meantime, Dandrow is running an Indiegogo campaign to fund the certification process, which can cost up to $50,000.

Photo: Jonathan Dandrow

via [Wired]

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Channtal Fleischfresser

About Channtal Fleischfresser

Channtal Fleischfresser is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Channtal Fleischfresser

Channtal Fleischfresser

Contributing Editor

Channtal Fleischfresser has worked for The Economist, WNET/Channel 13, Al Jazeera English, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press. She holds degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She is based in New York.

Follow her on Twitter.

Channtal Fleischfresser

Channtal Fleischfresser

Channtal does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
62
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Flash maybe too late
I think that when the camera flashes the pic has already been taken. ??

Cheaper to just not run red lights.

Tom
Posted by finny@...
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
$350?
Get serious, $350 for $10 worth of strobe light parts! Try and guess just how many people will not buy one.
Posted by alloro
22nd Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Too late?
The exposure time is the important factor. Sure, the initial photons from the red-light camera flash have already struck the license plate and returned to be registered in the camera. But to get a good exposure, the camera iris has to remain open for a very long time in terms of light travel, and even longer at night - this is why the range is greater after dark.
Posted by lexchis
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Not just cheaper...
It's also SAFER too to not run red lights.
I fail to see the implementation of 'Smart' in this Smartplanet article which advocates being able to circumvent safety in favour of arbitrary rights infringements.

*NOTE: Not to shoot the messenger, I have no issue with the article other than the underlying way in which someone has found a way to beat the letter of the law instead of embrace the spirit of the law; i.e. safe driving!
Posted by Mouseboy007
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Not to mention
Flashing strobe lights in the face of drivers behind you.
Posted by fairportfan
22nd Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Not a problem
If the driver behind you isnt be running the red light, he wont get the flash in his eyes.

(Also, the flash is aimed upwards toward the cameras.)
Posted by Joel Salomon
22nd Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
Not exactly.
The flash only illuminates the license plate and not flash back at the camera. The red light camera can be in several locations, usually on the right side of the intersection, but can vary in height. The light that illuminates the plate would be no worse than the flash that motorists will see in their mirror or would see coming from the opposite direction where they will be staring into the flash.

Remember that you only need enough light to make sure that the plate area is over exposed.

Many years ago an engineer in the company had a friend that worked for a company that did radar work. After a wrongfully issued speeding ticket he designed his car front end so that it had a radar signature of a gnat (well maybe a humming bird). Every county radar never showed a speed other than 0 for him.

When companies, towns, cities, etc don't play fair (just like those THAT deliberately run reds) then the cat and mouse game will never end.
Posted by dave@...
22nd Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
And the tinfoil in his hubcaps helped too
"Many years ago an engineer in the company had a friend that worked for a company that did radar work. After a wrongfully issued speeding ticket he designed his car front end so that it had a radar signature of a gnat (well maybe a humming bird). Every county radar never showed a speed other than 0 for him."

Bull.
Posted by fairportfan
7th Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
Doesn't blind drivers
It flashes across the license plate not backward towards drivers. Unlike the red light cameras themselves which flash directly at oncoming traffic from the other direction...
Posted by Maserati Maven
22nd Oct
+6 Votes
+ -
Rights
People have rights under our system, and it is the Red Light Cameras that violate those rights, NOT this product.

I am hair-trigger about rights, because they are ALL that protect us the public from the abuses of the police.

If the cameras ignore our rights to due process, I am ALL FOR outfoxing them.
Posted by Lightning Joe
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
True, but...
But you're assuming the accuracy of the camera that is synched with the lights. The camera doesn't take into account unique situations such as crappy tires on a rainy road. More than once I've run a red light (not stale red of course) but only because it was safer to go through a light that just turned red than potentially skid into an intersection full of cars.
Posted by Havokmon
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
tires
Get better tires. You shouldn't be riding around on junk.
Posted by philwhite42@...
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Then you were driving too fast
If you could not slow down when you saw the Yellow Light you were travelign too fast for the situation, Environment and Car.
You are jsut making BS excuses for your bad driving.
You might have an argument about keeping up with trafic for a speed cam, but running a red light is just wrong. ALWAYS.
I wish there were more RED light cams, and this type of BS should get a massive fine. This is no different from covering you plate, just using photons rather then plastic or metal.
Posted by CharlesG1970
7th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
????
What is the flash for, if the photo. has been taken?

The best thing is to have a $5,000 penalty for using such a device. If the cameras infringe motorist's rights then it is time to change the law. There can be no case for arguing against a fine for running a red that cannot be made with the same force when the evidence is a photo. than can be made when there is a witness.
Posted by RobSlack
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
re. ???? Some finer points.
As for the flash, picture, timing see Too Late? above. I remember old film cameras in dark scenes. The flash unit produces a short burst of light usually in the thousandths of a second. Your eyes see something different as the burst of light gets burnt onto your retina for a few seconds. However the camera would leave the shutter open for about a 60th of a second since the mechanical speed of the shutter was never as fast as the flash. You had to leave it open long enough to make sure that fast flash occured sometime whlie the shutter was open.

Laws are fast to implement and slow to change/remove. Many times you have to wonder why things are not thought out more thoroughly. Just like Clint Eastwood for mayor in Carmel, CA. where the mayor and some city ccouncil wanted to ban ice cream cones downtown rather than try another solution. Too many times its easier to ban humans and what we do rather put some thought into things.
Posted by dave@...
Updated - 22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Must be a cop
I agree that a 5000 penalty for the city each and every time they try to impose a fine in a court of law without cross examination of the live witness in a trial before a judge or jury of your peers is justified. Anyone who infringes or even suggest otherwise should be sent to Guantanamo or exiled to North Korea.
Posted by sully40272
15th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
100% Success rate
The 100% success rate for avoiding fines from those 'pesky' Red Light camera's, is to wake the hell up when you are driving, get off the damned phone and not to run them in the first place.

You might even 'get lucky', not crash or run someone over, and not get your ass sued off as well.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds like a solution to getting caught ...but ...
I don't travel much in urban settings so perhaps I don't understand the need to avoid getting caught breaking the law. Seems to me that not running red lights would be even better than spending $350 for a device to attempt avoiding getting caught doing so. I assume there would also be additional cost to wire the tag frame into the car's electric system, so the full cost would be in excess of $400 for the frame, shipping and installation. Of course, as the article says, that amount is still only about the cost of a ticket if you get caught. The first ticket you avoid pays for the frame and then you can run as many red lights as you want; until the tag frame is outlawed.
Posted by lbrac
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Or until you kill a pedestrian
Or t-bone a soccer mom's van with five neighbourhood kids on their way to the swimming pool...
Posted by fairportfan
22nd Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
Rear-ender
More likely a rear-end collission from somebody stamping on their brakes to AVOID an infraction and the "soccer mom" plows into YOUR rear!
Posted by JTF243@...
22nd Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
breaking the law is not always so black and white
Some cities have been caught shortening the yellow light times to increase the number of tickets.
For many intersections, over 80% of the tickets are for turning right on red without coming to a complete stop -- still not a great idea but not the image most people have when they visualize someone running a red light.
I recall reading where a high-school principle was getting several speed-camera tickets per week -- his students were making fake tags for their own cars and having a contest to see who could get the highest speed and thus the biggest ticket. There was no provision to dispute the tickets, so the principal was stuck going to the media to try to get resolution.
Posted by Day Dreamer
23rd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Simple solution.
They have to have the photo on file and it must be mailed to you. Once a judge sees that the vehicle in the picture doesn't match the DMV description they have to dismiss. However if the operator doesn't quash the ticket they they should be sued.
Posted by dave@...
23rd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Give me a break
Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association, recently argued that the traffic-light cameras violate several key tenets of a citizens due process rights, because there is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation, and so therefore, the defendant loses the right to cross-examine his accuser in court.
What point would you argue anyway! They got your freakin picture running the light. GIVE ME A BREAK Mr. Biller. Find something useful to do while your on the job.
Posted by foolmeonce
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
What is the difference
between someone standing on the corner witnessing the event, and saying, "I saw him run a red light" and someone looking at a photo of your car in the intersection with a red light, and saying, "I see in this photo that you ran a red light"?

You stil get to confront your witness.
Posted by bb_apptix
22nd Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
The Difference Is:
Do we think it is a good idea to have machines policing people?

It is really just that simple. Some people just don't think that machines should EVER be anything but subservient to people. A red light camera sysytem is essentially a machine that operates for the purpose of passing judgement on a human's activity. some folks really don't think machine should be invested with that kind of authority.
Posted by z2217
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Memory is bad photo is good
The difference is that you might be able to get a cop to mess up his/her testomony, and get out of the ticket, if there is a photo, that shows you running the red, then these crazy driver haev to pay.
This is not about due process this is about bad drivers wantign to get away with runnign red light.
Posted by CharlesG1970
7th Feb
+5 Votes
+ -
Speak for yourself
You can give up your rights to Big Brother, but do not assume the rest of us will meekly follow you.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Posted by dennyinusa
22nd Oct
-4 Votes
+ -
Red light traffic cameras
There is a rather important reason that these cameras are there. Their function is to discourage dangerous driving, prevent accidents and save lives. This so-called 'invention' is already illegal in enlightened european countries, for that very reason. It represents an entirely anti-social and selfish response to a community that is trying to protect the innocent and the vulnerable.

Apart from that, placing unlegislated lighting systems or any form of driver distraction onto the rear of vehicles, would also be prevented in europe. That in itself is likely to cause an accident when they ignite without warning and blind the following driver.

Perhaps this 'inventor' should be taken gently aside and encouraged to realise his folly. If not, then those who can afford the odd $500 will be themselves enticed to break the law at each and every opportunity, until perhaps they end up killing themselves by running red lights at the wrong junction.
Posted by peter.bessey@...
22nd Oct
+8 Votes
+ -
Not for safety
Wow, what rubbish, Peter. The cameras are installed by private companies and are purely for revenue generation not to "discourage dangerous driving, prevent accidents and save lives". It's a shared partnership between the cities and the companies. Most of the companies are guaranteed a minimum amount of revenue. The yellow lights are shortened to ensure they get enough money. If they don't, they have the right to insist the cameras be moved to a more profitable intersection. The private companies store your personal data. The private companies make the determination if you have violated the law. They send the "infraction" info to a traffic officer who is supposed to review them. At a rate of hundreds of infractions per day in many cases, the officers don't even bother to look at them. They just accept the private companies opinion. The ticket is issued to the owner of the car not the driver since they don't know who was driving. I own 5 cars - I would get every ticket. Right turns on red trigger the cameras. They give out thousands of tickets to drivers who they claim didn't stop. To fight the ticket you have to go in person to the traffic officer. No court option; these are cleverly designed as civil infractions so you can't fight them before a judge. I could go on and on but I won't bother. The Hartford Courant did a series of articles on these last year and clearly concluded they are not installed for safety and do not increase safety. Think for one second: do you really believe that anyone buying one of these is doing so because they want to blow through red lights and slam into oncoming vehicles??? If you do, then no amount of logic will convince you otherwise.
Posted by Maserati Maven
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
However even though this is rare
who's to say that other cities/towns haven't done some modifications.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3074.asp

League City may or may not have altered the timing (I can't think of how the electronics can modify the timing but things to break from time to time) but Baytown is deliberate. They should be taken to court and fined plus have to do refunds.
Posted by dave@...
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
And they didn't set them back!
After Baytown, Texas removed the cameras, they failed to set the lights back to a longer cycle, so traffic still backs up and people are still running the lights. (And if you don't try to sneak through before the cars on opposing sides start to move, you're really being rude, holding up traffic.)

I don't know that they shortened the yellow. What they did was make the greens too short, so fewer cars clear each cycle. The correct way to operate a light is to let as many cars as is practical through, so there are less slow downs and speed ups, resulting in a higher average speed and less waiting.

Before the red light cameras, traffic flowed smoothly.
Posted by AlanLaRue
Updated - 24th Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
Harder than you think
Ibrac wrote:
Seems to me that not running red lights would be even better than spending $350 for a device to attempt avoiding getting caught doing so.

The problem is that the city (or its vendor, in our town it's Xerox ACS) resets the duration of the yellow lights on those intersections with red-light cameras. Yellows last 10 seconds on camera-free intersections, 3 seconds on intersections with cameras. It's difficult to avoid getting caught, and rear-ender accidents have increased by nearly 1000 per cent.

There are two adjacent communities here in central North Carolina which had such cameras, Raleigh and Cary. Cary removed its cameras, finding that problems outweighed benefits. Raleigh considered doing so, then wavered. The yellows are back to ten seconds in Cary.
Posted by lmarks@...
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
10 seconds????
Why on Earth would you need 10 seconds on yellow? If yellows last 10 seconds in the USA, no wonder you get red-light infractions all the time; such a long yellow is just begging people to go over on yellow the whole time.
What you need is a much shorter yellow (2-3 seconds), then you'll get into the habit of stopping on yellow (like you're meant to). Once this is achieved, only the reckless, dangerous drivers will be going over on red and the cameras can be fitted without penalising the average driver.
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
22nd Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
Even you can't react/stop that fast.
It takes a person 3/4 to a full second to see, understand and then get a foot on the break. in that second you have travelled 3-4 car lengths and you haven't even begin to slow down. You would have to stop so hard with a 2-3 seconds yellow that you would probably get rear ended. That could probably get you pushed into the intersection and then who knows.
Posted by dave@...
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
And then there are the speed on green tickets
where, even though you didn't blow a red, you can get fined for speeding through an intersection.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/01/24/edmonton-tickets-refund.html
Posted by dave@...
22nd Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
Make it a part of due process...
I don't have a problem with the technology. However, when it was instituted in Charlotte, NC, the vendor provided the technology and received the fines as pay for providing it. If you wanted to appeal a citation, you appealed to the vendor. Whether or not the technology works, this is not how it should be set up. If the local law enforcement wants to use the technology, then buy it, and let the drivers receiving citations take it to court if they want to contest it. The vendor arrangement is unacceptable as its too prone to abuse by the vendor.
The program finally fell through in Charlotte, because state law requires traffic fines to go to public schools. Letting the vendor have them violated that, and the city is now on the hook to the school system for a bunch of money that will never get paid.
Posted by Diveguy7317
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Cameras in North Carolina - no more
A few years ago NC cities were sued over cameras as the state constitution mandated something like 90% of fines had to go to the local county. There was little money left to pay the companies who install and manage the cameras. The NC supreme court upheld the law. Shortly afterwards the cameras disappeared.
Posted by demoguy
7th Feb
+5 Votes
+ -
$cameras
Simply not running red lights would be fine were the $camera Scam not designed to facilitate red light running by shortening yellow lights. Don't think so? Just check out what happened in the city of Oakland, California when the traffic engineer lengthened the yellow lights at intersections where the city had placed revenue collecting $cameras. The police department sent the traffic department a message complaining that they were jeopardizing the $camera program because red light infractions (usually only fraction of a second violations that pose no safety hazard) dropped dramatically along with the more important revenue. ANYthing that defeats this $cam is legitimate in my opinion, including this: http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
Posted by Dagobert II
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Uhm....
..just drive more safely?
Posted by Mouseboy007
22nd Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Watch out if visiting or living in California
Here is better preventive info - without laying out any money!

What I'm referring to is Snitch Tickets, which are fake/phishing red light camera tickets sent out by the California police in an effort to fool the registered owner into identifying the actual driver of the car so that a real ticket can be sent to that person. Over thirty California cities use them, and in some cities they are more than half of all tickets sent out. Snitch tickets have not been filed with the court, so they dont say Notice to Appear, dont have the courts address and phone # on them, and usually say, on the back (in small letters), Do not contact the court about this notice. Since they have not been filed with the court, they have no legal weight whatsoever. You can, and should, ignore a Snitch Ticket. If in doubt, Google the term. And tell your friends who live in or visit California, so that they won't get tricked.

Also, a REAL camera ticket from ANY city in LA County can be ignored, as the LA courts do not report ignored tickets to the DMV. (This was revealed in multiple LA Times articles last summer. It is applicable ONLY to cities in LA county.)
Posted by HenrySP
22nd Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
Engineering vs. predatory cameras
The real answer, IF safety is the goal, is to time the yellow intervals long enough for the ACTUAL approach speeds of at least 85% of the vehicles. Set that way (typically a one second longer yellow), the number of violations will be too small for the cameras to even pay their own high costs, typically $3,000 to $5,000 per month per camera.

But safety is NOT the goal for cities that are business partners with a camera vendor, MONEY is the goal with as many tickets to be issued as possible. If the noPhoto device proves effective, they will find plenty of buyers who will then not be subject to the predatory red light camera cash registers.

James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Posted by jcwconsult
22nd Oct
-6
Rights? Whatcha Mean 'Rights?
Posted by joseph.vreeland@...  |  Below your threshold
+2 Votes
+ -
Off our meds are we?
My, my are we having a bad day or what?
Posted by dave@...
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
What did our Founding Fathers die for?
You keep pointing fingers at others maybe you should look in the mirror. You trust a cop with rifle shows what an idiot you are, what makes you think cops don't make mistakes. Do not count on others for your own safety. That is your job, stop blaming others. I will take Civil Libertarians over what ever you are anyday, they don't point fingers they just want people to except responsibility for themselves.
Posted by dennyinusa
Updated - 22nd Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Travel, don't drive.
Actually, traveling, unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured on a public roadway IS a common law RIGHT. Traveling is distinguished from driving in that driving is a commercial activity while traveling is not. Most of us travel rather than drive and thus need neither license, registration nor insurance. Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9k-cblUUR8
Posted by Dagobert II
22nd Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
Numb Nuts!
Anybody who would cite a youtube posting to validate a point of law, deserves what they get in court!
Posted by wallyg34@...
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Lots of wrecks
If you get in that many wrecks, odds are that even though the other driver is legally at fault, it's your unusual driving that is throwing the other drivers off. Hopefully, your insurance rates reflect the fact that you have a lot of wrecks, because even though you're not legally at fault, it's clear that you have more than your share, so you much be doing something, or a lot of things, wrong.

Driving is a social activity, like walking in a crowd, and requires social skills, such as conforming to norms.
Posted by AlanLaRue
24th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Timing and obscured vision
Two arguements can be made in regard to "Running a red light"
1) The reason there is a yellow light is to alert the driver that the light will be changing to red and should stop. Granted there are some yellow lights that are improperly timed for the speed limit at that intersection but the functionality is there. Suggestion to those that find themselves in a compromised situation of being to close to the intersection to stop, have your foot lightly on the brakes to indicate there was a hazard ahead of you.

2) The arguement can be made that because the camera is considered to be a piece of traffic safety equipment and assist in identifying a vehicle that may or may not have poorly timed their transition through the intersection, to do anything to obscure the clarity of the license plate at any time would be consistent with the existing laws.

At the same time a prosecutor may see the act of deliberately obscuring the view of the license plate an act of evading prosecution and an attempt to flee.

Bottom line, if you have time to stop when it goes yellow, you have no excuse for getting a red light ticket.

If you feel it to be unsafe to attempt to stop because the yellow timing was too short then you have an arguement to make in court.
Posted by kfortner51
Updated - 22nd Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
One example of a situation
I was leaving court, how ironic, after being a witness of a driver blindly changing 2 lanes of traffic, on a one way, to get to a 7-11. That caused the driver beside her to try to avoid the impending accident. That resulted in him hitting a car beside him because there was not enough time to lane check.

The city did not police a venue, that they approved, to make sure the booths were set back from the curb. As a result my attention was on some people who were a mear foot from the curb and I had slowed to 20 mph just in case. By the time I cleared the people I was in the first crosswalk with the light changing from yellow to red. I coasted through the intersection at 20 (didn't try to speed up to look like I was running it).

Received the $275 ticket and rather than pay went to court. That was a 4 month wait. The prosecution knew that they probably wouldn't win.so didn't show up or even mail a withdrawl. Judge dismissed. Guess they didn't figure on me waiting them out.
Posted by dave@...
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
How true!
In Illinois, you can sign the back of your ticket to "avoid multiple appearances".
UNFORTUNATELY, many judges choose to ignore that so you usually have to make two appearances. The nice thing is that, in over 75% of the cases (speeding, seatbelt, improper lane usage, etc.), the cop never shows up.
Case dismissed!
Posted by JTF243@...
22nd Oct
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive