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

81–90 of 345 posts

Re: TV detector van

#81

Post by rolph »

we are looking at an iceberg there is more to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

i know this is about optical side channeling, and tempest is a US effort, but there is a method that was developed and when you can tune in to the synching signal of a TV, CRT, or even an LCD, you can translate the reflected light and reveal much more than presence of a device, You Can Actually Watch what The Suspect Is Watching!

A suffieciently motivated attacker with easily fabbed equipment and patience of a ham radio Dx er kinda guy, will know a lot more than presence and use of a "TV" display

Re: TV detector van

#82

Post by marshray »

joezydeco wrote: post #24
dsr_ wrote: post #15

The 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…

I would think the stray light from a CRT strobing at 50Hz could be picked up by a photodiode and some amplification. The point of the 'detection' was to just see if a TV was in operation and not to see what was being watched.

Ever seen the flickering light of a television behind someone's curtains?

Ever seen an app that can identify what song is playing?

Re: TV detector van

#83

Post by DanBC »

iamnotacrook wrote: post #45
dsr_ wrote: post #15

The 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.

Sexual Offences Act 2003, S67 and S68: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67

Re: TV detector van

#84

Post by corndoge »

petercooper wrote: post #74

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.

> 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

Not making the connection here, care to elaborate?

Re: TV detector van

#85

Post by amaccuish »

tomxor wrote: post #43

You 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…

> "If you live in the UK and own a TV you must pay the BBC whether you want the BBC or not!"

This isn't true.

Re: TV detector van

#86

Post by mikepurvis »

groundlogic wrote: post #34
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…

Swedish public service transitioned from a per-household fee (for households that held devices capable of showing RF broadcast TV) to a per citizen tax January 1st this year. Of course, they go to great lengths to avoid calling it a tax, but... well, it is a tax. I don't really like it. There's no opt-out any longer. And the content is predictably all-consuming leftist.

Canada's national broadcaster (the CBC) is funded out of general tax revenue, which I appreciate. Extremists on both sides complain that it leans too far the other way, which is probably a good sign overall. Certainly the CBC coverage pulls no punches when discussing our famous Liberal government scandals.

Other than as a news organization, another part of why it exists is to purchase and stimulate the developments of home-grown content (Little Mosque on the Praire, Schitt's Creek, Kim's Convenience, etc). For this reason, it has sometimes raised eyebrows in the past when it has purchased licenses to air mainstream Hollywood films, especially if doing so competes against private broadcasters like CTV.

Re: TV detector van

#87

Post by exhilaration »

sofaofthedamned wrote: post #18
agurk wrote: post #7

I 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…

As a child in the 80s I remember my family being scared of this van even though it probably never existed. Because of this my mum got a pay TV instead which we had to put 50p coins in periodically that paid for both the TV rental and the license fee.

You had a coin-operated TV...? At home...? Did someone come regularly to collect the coins? I'm genuinely fascinated by this.

Re: TV detector van

#88

Post by tantalor »

joezydeco wrote: post #24
dsr_ wrote: post #15

The 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…

I would think the stray light from a CRT strobing at 50Hz could be picked up by a photodiode and some amplification. The point of the 'detection' was to just see if a TV was in operation and not to see what was being watched.

Too many false positives: recorded videos, video games, computers

Re: TV detector van

#90

Post by DanBC »

rtkwe wrote: post #29
oxidising wrote: post #12

Earlier 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.

We have / had a tax but not licence fee funded channel already: Channel 4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4

Although they're mostly funded by ads and selling their programming now.

Post reply on HN