The interesting thing is the Operation section sounds a lot like they're using the same principal behind TEMPEST [0] and van Eck phreaking where leaked emanations from electronic devices can be used to spy on the computation being done and data being displayed. Flat panel displays can be spyed on using this method [1] so it's not completely out of bound of reality that these vans could work as detectors.
TV detector van
41–50 of 345 posts
Re: TV detector van
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
We pay the licence fee to fund the BBC. They make some amazing documentaries (Planet Earth, Blue Planet etc). They also have radio stations, all advert free. Being advert free is rare these days.
That's fine, a well funded public broadcaster is a great idea. The question is why in the world is it done as a license fee instead of as a much simpler to implement tax or a subscription where the OTA broadcasts are encrypted and a fee is paid to maintain the ability to decrypt.
[deleted]
Re: TV detector van
#43You might think these vans were crazy then, what's more crazy today is how they continue to force their opt-out licensing upon everyone like it's still 1946 and they are the only broadcasters in town.
If you live in the UK and own a TV you must pay the BBC whether you want the BBC or not!
I'm one of the minority who don't own a TV in the UK and even then they make it their business to inform me every two years about all the different ways they can invade my home, fine me extortionate sums and send me to prison for the crime of being caught owning television signal receiving equipment without paying them.
Given how nasty all the smart TVs are these days, when I eventually want such luxuries I plan to eventually get a huge monitor and just play netflix or whatever on it... it would be interesting to see their response to that.
Re: TV detector van
#44I lived in a flat in England in the early 2000s which kept getting letters from the BBC saying we didn't have a TV licence. The letters were sometimes more threatening for a period, then sometimes more reconciliatory. They were also running TV adverts at the time claiming they had detector vans about, and if you didn't have a licence you'd be caught. I did some research at the time, and it seemed that evidence from a…
I believe when you buy a TV retailers are required to take down your address I bought one once and evidently they managed to typo the house number, so our neighbour down the street who didn't have a TV kept getting the 'we know you have a TV but no license threatening letters
>I believe when you buy a TV retailers are required to take down your address
Is this for real? I remember thinking "dystopian as hell" when I heard about all the CCTVs in England, but this one takes the cake. I can at least see the points made by the other side of the CCTV argument, even though I very much disagree with them.
Why cannot one just buy a TV in England without giving out their personal info?
Re: TV detector van
#45The warrant revealed that a BBC contractor had used an "optical detector" to reveal the possible presence of a TV.[10] The warrant stated that: "the optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light signals into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed. If a receiver is being used to watch br…
"Does this put the BBC at risk of violating anti-peeping-Tom legislation?" Er, you'd have to be more specific. I'm not familiar with that legislation.
Re: TV detector van
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
We pay the licence fee to fund the BBC. They make some amazing documentaries (Planet Earth, Blue Planet etc). They also have radio stations, all advert free. Being advert free is rare these days.
That's fine, a well funded public broadcaster is a great idea. The question is why in the world is it done as a license fee instead of as a much simpler to implement tax or a subscription where the OTA broadcasts are encrypted and a fee is paid to maintain the ability to decrypt.
A similar system in Germany (where we are constantly amazed at how much better content the BBC produces) is not a tax to minimize government influence. The goal is to make it public, but not government controlled.
Personally I think that it should be organized like a tax nonetheless, because if a public broadcaster is a benefit to society, it's a benefit to those who watch just as much as to those who don't watch, similar to how those who don't enter medical school will still enjoy the availability of doctors. A precedence exists, in Germany the Finanzamt is happily collecting a tax-like thing on behalf of the established churches from their members, without that ever having led anyone to suggest that the churches were controlled by the government. The investure controversy isn't exactly still lingering.
Re: TV detector van
#47I lived in a flat in England in the early 2000s which kept getting letters from the BBC saying we didn't have a TV licence. The letters were sometimes more threatening for a period, then sometimes more reconciliatory. They were also running TV adverts at the time claiming they had detector vans about, and if you didn't have a licence you'd be caught. I did some research at the time, and it seemed that evidence from a…
I believe when you buy a TV retailers are required to take down your address I bought one once and evidently they managed to typo the house number, so our neighbour down the street who didn't have a TV kept getting the 'we know you have a TV but no license threatening letters
That seems to be true.
I once received a letter from TV licensing after I bought a TV USB dongle off Amazon...
Re: TV detector van
#48In response a BBC spokeswoman rejected claims that the vans are a hoax: "Detector vans are an important part of our enforcement of the licence fee. We don't go into detail about how many there are or how they work as this information might be useful to people trying to evade the fee." AKA they do nothing other than scare people who wouldn't otherwise pay the license fee into paying it.
AKA nothing. As the article mentions, a warrant goes into detail about how the vans function: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/statements_involving_...
The idea they're empty and "just to scare people" is a myth. They are functioning devices.
Re: TV detector van
#49Watching television without a licence in the UK is actually a criminal (rather than civil) offence, and hundreds of thousands of purple are convicted each year of the offence. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non...
To be clear, this only applies to television that is paid for by the license (BBC etc, including streaming via iPlayer). I have a television and use it only to watch Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, and am thus not required to pay the license. Which goes to show how ridiculous these vans are, since they can't tell where you're getting the content you're watching.
This is incorrect advice that could get someone convicted.
A licence is required if you watch live TV on any channel.
Re: TV detector van
#50This is such nonsense. In my opinion the BBC should be paid for by a proper tax, as an informed public benefits everyone, or they should just give up on calling it a license. The people going around houses just send threatening letters, and act as though they have some right to enter your home and inspect it (they don't). They go around terrorising people who don't know their rights, but don't watch TV anyway. I rout…
I very much enjoy the right to opt out of paying for the BBC, whose programming I no longer have any interest in watching. I'm extremely glad that it's not paid for by a compulsory tax.