Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TV detector van

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 345 posts

Re: TV detector van

#71

Post by tantalor »

Scoundreller wrote: post #61
tantalor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> evidence from a detector van had never been submitted How could it be, if the mechanism behind the detector is not made public? Prosecutor: This machine says you are guilty. Defendant: How does that machine work? Prosecutor: You aren't allowed to know. Defendant: ??? Judge: Case dismissed.

Sounds like typical legal stances on breathalyzers, speed cameras and red light cameras.

A bad breathalyzer can be challenged in court as "not scientifically reliable".

https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/22/ju...

Re: TV detector van

#72

Post by [deleted] »

usrusr wrote: post #46
rtkwe wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, si…

[deleted]

Re: TV detector van

#73

Post by umvi »

noodlesUK wrote: post #13

This 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…

Wait what, this is still going on today? I thought this was a historical thing.

What if you buy a TV for "offline" use only (i.e. Nintendo Switch)?

Re: TV detector van

#74

Post by petercooper »

Have to laugh at all the Americans saying this is crazy or nonsensical when it's legal to carry guns in much of your country :-D

That aside, lest anyone think TV detector vans are all over the place, in my almost 40 years of living in the UK I've never seen or had interactions with one. They may as well be the Loch Ness monster for how mythical they are.

Re: TV detector van

#75

Post by jjbinx007 »

umvi wrote: post #73
noodlesUK wrote: post #13

This 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…

Wait what, this is still going on today? I thought this was a historical thing. What if you buy a TV for "offline" use only (i.e. Nintendo Switch)?

You need a TV licence if you watch or record TV as it's broadcasted (or shortly afterwards) or if you use iPlayer.

Re: TV detector van

#76

Post by DanBC »

umvi wrote: post #73
noodlesUK wrote: post #13

This 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…

Wait what, this is still going on today? I thought this was a historical thing. What if you buy a TV for "offline" use only (i.e. Nintendo Switch)?

You need a licence if you receive live tv as it's broadcast, or if you watch BBC iPlayer (a video on demand "catch up" service).

You don't need a licence if you don't watch live tv as it's broadcast.

Re: TV detector van

#77

Post by umvi »

henryfjordan wrote: post #66
jarvist wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it sounds like a telescope focusing onto a single pixel (i.e. just the back of the curtains), and then using the output from this pixel with a lock-in amplifier tied to the broadcast signal. The sensitivity would be enormous due to the lock-in. With a CRT you would be able to do this with In today's LCD world, I guess something similar could be done for a whole pixel-average of a whole frame, and then look at the…

So it's using a telescope and a camera to see what's going on in your house (albeit hopefully in a very limited way)... In the US that'd be an illegal search without a warrant.

In the US no one cares if you buy a TV and set up some rabbit ears or whatever you want with it, especially not the government

Re: TV detector van

#78

Post by DanBC »

jfindley wrote: post #50
noodlesUK wrote: post #13

This 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.

But you have to opt out of watching all live tv for your method to work.

Re: TV detector van

#79

Post by mrec »

goldcd wrote: post #60
mrec wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, and it's every bit as ridiculous as it sounds, but I suspect it'll be discontinued within the next decade or so and the BBC will become something sane like a normal subscription channel. Anecdotally I've noticed a sea change in general-topic UK discussion fora over the past five years or so. It used to be the case that anyone criticizing the BBC was downvoted to oblivion, but the old reverence for it as an i…

I'm not sure I'd agree that there's been some "backlash" - on any discussion, both sides will quite happily criticize the BBC for bias, which I take to be a good thing. The funding model behind the BBC is a bit suspect - I'd prefer a direct grant from the government. Alternatives are not particularly palatable - it becomes a department of the government, or has to self fund and becomes just another commercial provide…

You might be replying to the wrong comment; I never mentioned "backlash". Less popular, less relevant, less trusted, yes.

Re: TV detector van

#80

Post by FireBeyond »

henryfjordan wrote: post #66
jarvist wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it sounds like a telescope focusing onto a single pixel (i.e. just the back of the curtains), and then using the output from this pixel with a lock-in amplifier tied to the broadcast signal. The sensitivity would be enormous due to the lock-in. With a CRT you would be able to do this with In today's LCD world, I guess something similar could be done for a whole pixel-average of a whole frame, and then look at the…

So it's using a telescope and a camera to see what's going on in your house (albeit hopefully in a very limited way)... In the US that'd be an illegal search without a warrant.

To look in your open window, even with a telescope? I don't think that is considered illegal.
Post reply on HN