BBC uses RIPA terrorism laws to catch TV licence fee dodgers in Northern Ireland
belfasttelegraph.co.uk
belfasttelegraph.co.uk
Nothing like transparency. The rest of the article strongly suggests this is to do with the detector vans. This is partially confirmed by a FOI query: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/prosecutions_from_tel...
It sounds like everyone in authority believes that the use of detector vans is regulated by RIPA. I think this is due to section 2:
(2)For the purposes of this Act, but subject to the following provisions of this section, a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if, he—
(a)so modifies or interferes with the system, or its operation,
(b)so monitors transmissions made by means of the system, or
(c)so monitors transmissions made by wireless telegraphy to or from apparatus comprised in the system,
as to make some or all of the contents of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication.
The detector vans are rumored to work by picking up the IF of the TV's heterodyne receiver. I guess this counts as "interception" of a signal, even though it's a signal that was publicly broadcast in the first place.
This could all be cleared up by a clear statement from someone about what surveillance is taking place, but of course everyone loves secrecy and there's no honesty in public debate.
There is no reliable evidence that they exist. The BBC likes to perpetuate this myth for obvious reasons.
EDIT: sorry, I mean there is no reliable evidence that they are actually used for enforcement. Several vans do exist that were used in TV advertising to start this myth. Whether they worked or not is very debatable. (Certainly their supposed detection mechanism wouldn't work with LCD TVs, now more common than CRT TVs.)
However, they have never been used for enforcing TV licensing. They are entirely a publicity stunt / a myth put about by the BBC to scare people into buying a license.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/55922/response/164153... however is a FOI response from TVL (run by Capita IIRC) that "TVL uses detection evidence when applying for search warrants". But "detection evidence" is not defined and probably means the guy in the van seeing a CTV connection/aerial/dish or looking through the window and seeing a TV???
I agree, Detector Vans are mostly a deterrent, but nothing technological about them
Most "TV detection" that's done is actually someone looking at the window and seeing a TV, or by other means.
Electromagnetic monitoring from space.
You need a TV licence to install or use a television receiver per the Communications Act 2003, Part 4, Section 363[1].
The definition of a "television receiver" in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004[2] is:
"[…] any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."
And "receiving a television programme service" is
"receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service."
TV Licensing have it more simply[3] as:
"If you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or an online TV service, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device."
But:
"If you don't watch TV at all, or you only ever watch on demand or catch-up TV, you can tell us you don't need a TV Licence."
1. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363
2. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/9/mad...
3. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/ho...
True, true, but how wonderful that they gave birth to Monty Python's "roving cat detector vans"!
However, if you went right up to it and peered hard enough through the windows, you could see that it was just a regular minibus with seating and no equipment inside.
Here is a TV Licencing employee admitting as much: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg5t4jVBemE
The backs of the vans are empty, and are sometimes parked in prominent places with a lot of passing pedestrian or vehicle traffic, e.g. supermarket car parks, as a reminder/scare-tactic for people to buy a licence, in locations where TV licence evasion is suspected.
This is how TV detection works:
1. TV Licencing (actually the BBC, see below) maintain a database of every address in the UK, compiled from various sources.
2. The vast majority of addresses are covered by a TV licence, because, seriously, who hasn't got a TV.
3. The remaining addresses without a licence may be randomly select for investigation ('detection'), and an investigator sent to the address in a 'detector van' (just used for transport), or may be selected on the basis of 'intelligence', i.e. snitching neighbours, disgruntled employees, etc.
4. If the address doesn't qualify for a TV licence, e.g. non-permanent resident of a static caravan or other extenuating circumstances, then the address details are amended as such in the database.
5. If the address would normally qualify for a licence, then the 'detector' (human investigator) will see if there is evidence of watching TV, and may knock on the door to talk to the occupants.
6. At this point, TV Licencing can, if satisfied, mark the address as (temporarily) not requiring a TV licence, or pursue further action, e.g. legal action. Periodically, the address will be sent letters reminding them that they don't have a licence, and should probably get one, regardless.
No 'electronic detection' equipment is used, other than laptops and PDA-type devices that have access to the address database, or portions of it. These are the rumoured 'handheld detectors'.
That's it. All the detection equipment rumours are just that: scare-mongering tactics by the BBC.
"TV Licencing" itself is maintained as a brand distinct from the BBC to avoid tarnishing the image of the BBC's main brand with such rumours of snooping, scare-tactics, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC itself has not actually used any RIPA powers, but is just spreading the rumour that it has done so. Hence the vagueness of the report.
Hmm.
On a side note where I work we used to get calls from the music licensing authorities, I always thought they just wanted to listen for background sounds so they could send in enforcers to fine us. I wonder if the BBC are doing that (perhaps buying recorded calls from marketeers, or such, and parsing for TV sounds??) - that would fall in to intercepting communications I feel.
Here is an interesting new one: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/08/28c3-smart-meter...
British truants and TV watchers alike now have the honour of being treated as terrorists. The fact that it's not some overreaching surveillance body, but a pedestrian mob like the BBC who is abusing this law so blatantly, shows how badly made this law really is. Obviously, it has no safeguards against this kind of misuse. The “lawmakers” who built this travesty should be sent back to primary school.
Arently a substatial minority of NI poluation where some what shocked post good friday when they where told "ah you have to start paying like every one else now"
RIPA was never about 'terrorists'. It was designed to harmonise access to investigative information across Government-affiliated organisations, including local authorities.
'Harmonise' in this context of course meant 'grant full privileges', usually only requiring the head of the organisation to sign-off. Very occasionally would the Secretary of State have to be bothered.
The use of RIPA by the BBC, for example, is not a surprise, it was a scenario foreseen during the consultation period. But the bill was not modified, because that was the intent.
Source: I provided input as part of informal groups during RIPA consultation.
Let us also think about how the leading democracies export the "democratic software" (laws) and they get copied/cited in not-so-advanced democracies in making their own laws. It is very easy for a barely-democratic state to cite a western democracy's law as a precedence.
Let us then think about how many people live under democratic laws (and under strong rule of law) and compare that to the number of people without that.
Depressing.
I fear that these badly written anti-terrorism laws are like software flaws that will flow from system to system and harm many more people than we can see right now.
Ummm... This is about Northern Ireland, which had an undeclared low simmering civil war for much of the late 20th century, with abuses by state powers (imprisonment without trail, soliders shooting protesters on the streets), active paramilitary groups killing civilians and state actors, and undemocratic processes (gerrymandering of votes).
I think we know what happens when the UK/NI state wants to abuse one part of the population.
While in US at least the government tries to pretend that it only spies on "foreign" (with its own interpretation of foreign) communications, because it knows otherwise it would be unconstitutional, in UK Cameron has just said that "nothing should be hidden from the government". And the sad part is there's nothing stopping the UK government/Parliament from passing such a law, nullifying what should be an absolute basic right to privacy everyone on Earth should have.
When there's no privacy there's no freedom. And governments now try to get rid of that freedom under the false pretense that it will offer more security instead (it won't, or at very least the trade-off between terrorist violence and government violence won't be worth it in the long term).
RIPA is an awful, awful law for a lot of reasons, but the article seems to sensationalise it in that RIPA does not appear to have suddenly allowed the BBC (or rather TV Licensing, which is a separate organization) to do something they weren't allowed to do before in this case (unless something much worse is hidden behind the "detection equipment" name).
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/te...
There is legislation moving through parliament to make this a civil offense as magistrate courts are swamped with these cases.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-...
But it's perfectly legal to own a TV and use the on-demand portions of iPlayer (everything apart from viewing the currently-being-broadcast channel streams), Netflix, Google Play, 4od, Demand 5, DVDs, Blurays, etc etc.
This is what I do. The TV Licensing website has a page where you can provide them with your reasons for not owning a TV license. This page explains (implicitly) all the things you can do sans license. And, hopefully, filling this in makes them less likely to pester you (I haven't had any contact from the licensing people).
Here is the text from TV Licensing:
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
Note how the second sentence arguably introduces confusion. You don't need a license if you use a computer but don't "Watch or record TV as it's being broadcast".
Effectively what this means is you can't dodge a license to watch television by watching live (By live I mean stuff that would be on the TV if you turned it on at that moment) TV through your iplayer. In Britain (not sure about other places), the iPlayer has a button to allow you to tune in to live TV. It's when you click that button you are in breach of licensing law.
The whole thing is stupid and archaic, but that's the price we pay for ad-free state TV.
Am I misremembering?
This change is actual encouraging for me as the new box I got to use for catch up services I think allows live TV (as a paid extra) and so I was concerned I might be accused of being in breach of the Act, but it seems not. Always nice to know.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I know that I had to buy a TV license when I moved in with my SO, but I'm not sure if that's because we bought a TV (we never watch it) or if my SO just did the necessary paperwork out of habit.
Well that's probably why the law was updated (if indeed it was) - the same rules used to apply to PC TV-tuner cards too though, having a tuner card was considered "receiving means" and meant license was needed for any premises where that computer was plugged in.
We have a TV but haven't had broadcast TV for many years, since our aerial blew down and we had no money to get it fixed - we stopped paying the license then as we no longer had receiving means. Just watch DVDs, iPlayer and the like (and use it for Wii).
As an aside, you can use a laptop to watch live TV anywhere (in UK), as long as you have a license for your "home"; but if you plug it in (eg to charge) then the premises you're at need a license!
For example a TV with built-in tuner and no other equipment (no DVD player, no console, etc etc) they would likely be able to argue that you do watch live TV even if you weren't witnessed doing it, whereas a TV that isn't connected to any aerial but is connected to an Xbox you could probably convince them otherwise without even leaving your own home.
I suspect that they would also lean towards giving the benefit of the doubt, because it's such a minor crime that if there's a chance you'd be found innocent in court, or that they'd have to spend time investigating further, it's a much better use of their time to move on to the next person.
But I could well be wrong.
It is only illegal to watch or record live TV broadcast without a license. This applies regardless of whether you use a TV or BBC iPlayer to receive the broadcast. IANAL etc.
Netflix has no equivalent of a broadcast channel so all of it is usable without a license.
You're welcome to argue it shouldn't be - either that license fees shouldn't be charged at all, or that it should be changed from a criminal to a civil matter (as another comment said is happening) - but argue one of those rather than just saying it isn't a crime.
I'm against paying for a license to watch TV, that's my stance, for the simple reason you can have a TV for more reasons than just watching broadcast TV.
I'm also surprised that they require a license for viewing any live internet stream produced by any (even foreign) producer, without having a UK license -even if the actual producer wants to make it freely available!
Paying a third, totally irrelevant entity in order to enjoy the online streaming of a foreign TV channel that doesn't require one, just doesn't make sense.
I happily pay for a TV license because I am happy with the quality of BBC, however if I wasn't watching on-line TV streams from parties that actually benefit from the licensing fees, I would blatantly ignore that law and troll them.
I think they phased it out in the mid-80s, or at least stopped replacing the parts when they stopped working, so there very probably isn't any working equipment left now—that's my impression, at least.
Since then it's gradually phased over to essentially SELECT address FROM addresses WHERE residential=1 AND tv_licence=0; now, with a side-order of retailers reporting the addresses of people who've bought TVs (so if you bought a TV, but not a TV licence, you're probably going to get a letter, and probably thereafter a visit).
I agree that they probably use their database. I wonder how they get a warrant though? Surely a databse entry isn't enough?
one of the strongest arguments for the BBC is it's under no obligation to meet any commercial or state interests. Some people may beg to differ on that viewpoint, but the BBC is generally highly regarded in the UK and abroad, especially for its news coverage
If the license fee didn't exist then the BBC would have to make programmes that satisfy the mainstream, which is usually the lowest common denominator.