Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

"The BBC declined to give any details about its use of RIPA"

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.

"Detector vans" are a myth.

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.)

I know somebody who covered their TV in tin foil to prevent detector vans. Some of the myths about TV licensing are taken really seriously :)

The linked FOI answer contains the sentence "I can confirm that TV detector vans do exist". Admittedly that's a claim rather than evidence, and it's not inconsistent with them being fake vans. Again, unaccountable surveillance.

They do "exist", in the literal sense of the word. You can see a picture of one on the wikipedia page about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...

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.

We had vans with antennas like that driving around in Germany in the 80s. Similar TV licence, similar myth. I'm sure they just measured signal strength to find out if they have to add more cell towers.

Well the vans seem real, http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detect%20the%20Detector%20vans.h..., but yes their being equipped with detector equipment is probably not real.

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???

Couldn't they just be looking through house windows for a 50Hz flicker? Wouldn't that be enough to indicate a TV is in oepration?

Incandescent lamps will also present the flicker

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.

There's always this, although it probably doesn't work on LCD screens:

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ieee02-optical.pdf

Perhaps, a laser or directional acoustic device that can detect such activity.

Electromagnetic monitoring from space.

You don't need a license to turn the TV on to play on your console for example.

Yes you do. If the tv is not disabled from receiving terrestrial broadcasts, you need a license.

If you buy a TV and plug it in but do not connect it to an aerial or satellite, you do not need a licence.

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...

Sometimes they'll do a follow up inspection to make sure. But yes, thanks for correcting this common misconception. Although I can see why people still think otherwise as the change in the law from what gress said wasn't shouted from the rooftops when it changed :)

That's a myth. The current legislation [0] says you only need a license to watch programmes when "received at the same time (or virtually the same time)" as broadcast - it doesn't say anything about requiring one to have a device which can receive live broadcasts. If that's the case you would be required to have a TV license to own a PC, as they can also receive live broadcasts.

[0] - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692

Nice find. That site explains the situation clearly: the vans exist, but don't do any "detecting". Instead they spend their time parking them in prominent places to perpetuate this myth. http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

TVL have the largest civilian database in the UK. They got into trouble for using that database to run billboard ads - "3 houses in this street do not have a TV licence".

In support of your stance, Danish Radio (Danish version of BBC, including TV, radio, internet etc.) have not only admitted to using fake detector vans, but even went so far as to by on the roof taxi ads displaying a message akin to "This is a detector van"

> "Detector vans" are a myth.

True, true, but how wonderful that they gave birth to Monty Python's "roving cat detector vans"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_Licence

About 15 years ago, there was a TV Licensing van that was often parked around the corner from my house. I vaguely recall that it said "detection unit" on the side or something similar, and it had heavily-tinted windows.

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.

The vans are simply for awareness and transport for the investigators who visit a percentage of addresses that do not have a licence.

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.

I don't have a TV and I've not had a letter for years. It's hillariuos when people from call centres in India call to sell TV related services. Their script clearly doesn't have that contingency catered for.

I get one about every 4 or 5 years or so.

UK Retailers of equipment capable of receiving a TV signal are (or at least were, back in the early '80s) obliged to take the name and address of anyone purchasing one, these details are / were regularly submitted to TV licensing authorities.

>The BBC declined to give any details about its use of RIPA. It argued that "maintaining uncertainty" about enforcement practices was part of its strategy to keep evasion to a minimum. //

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.

Has anybody ever reverse engineered the Nielsen (or the UK equivalent) audio watermarking codes that their automated survey apps rely on to record what shows and ads are viewed, and when (DVR)?

Could I tell what anyone is watching by monitoring for this signal outside their house?

In principle, yes. There are a number of other techniques as well.

Here is an interesting new one: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/08/28c3-smart-meter...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com