TV detector van • Hacker News Board

Re: TV detector van

#91

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

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.

Citizens from a country that has freedom as such a fundamental value that we permit everyone to own a gun find it nonsensical that citizens from the UK put up with the gov't pointing detectors at their house to see if they haven't paid their TV tax? That seems entirely consistent.

Re: TV detector van

#92

Post by jotm » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

djmobley wrote: post #9

Watching 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...

Wow, that article almost reads like a 1st of April joke. Why doesn't it affect your credit score, unlike non-payment of an electric/gas bill? I reckon that would make more people pay for it.

I kept getting these letters for years, even though I did not have a TV, or antenna.

Re: TV detector van

#93

Post by rolph » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #22

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.

Not the US.

yup even brushing your teeth and using mouthwash is not a stymie, often this is viewed as destruction/interference with evidence, if a cop can discover empty aloholic containers.

Re: TV detector van

#94

Post by DanBC » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

Wistar wrote: post #40

DanBC wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a licence if you watch live TV as it's broadcast, or if you watch BBC iPlayer catchup content. You need a licence for any device that you watch live tv as it's broadcast. You need a licence to watch live tv, no matter where it's broadcast from. The wording of the law says "installed or used to receive", so in theory you need a licence if you have eg a tv plugged into an aerial. They don't prosecute those cas…

Record and time-shift it so that it is no longer "live TV?"

Sorry, I meant to say "receive", not "watch".

We used to have B&W licences, and people with colour VCrs but B&W tvs were told that they were receiving in colour and so needed a colour licence.

This kind of thing makes TV licencing unpopular.

Re: TV detector van

#95

Post by al2o3cr » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

fourthark wrote: post #38

_-___________-_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounded like they do have technology to tell what content you are watching, which is even more ridiculous.

It would've been borderline-possible in the days of over-the-air television - the first local oscillator in the TV is going to be tuned to a frequency directly related to the channel being watched, so RF leakage would make the channel detectable.

Re: TV detector van

#96

Post by jotm » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

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.

Well, one reason is to reduce the tax numbers on paper. Sort of like council tax - it's not a "real" tax, until you refuse to pay it that is.

Re: TV detector van

#97

Post by dsr_ » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

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.

In the USA, laws against looking in someone's house on purpose are called "peeping Tom" laws.

Generally they specify that it's not a problem if you do not intend to violate anyone's privacy and don't take any steps to improve your sightline; conversely, if you intend to look into someone's house and you take any active measure to do so, you're in violation.

Re: TV detector van

#98

Post by amaccuish » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #88

joezydeco wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Presumably you could compare it to a reference signal, i.e. what is being broadcast right at that moment? Hence the TV aerials on the roof of the vans?

Re: TV detector van

#99

Post by DanBC » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

velox_io wrote: post #69

Wistar wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Record and time-shift it so that it is no longer "live TV?"

The was quite a while where iPlayer was covered by their law, there was another loophole where if your watching it on an untethered device (on a battery with wifi) that wasn't covered either, but I'm not sure now... The whole law is antiquated, now you don't need them or their transmission equipment. I do believe that if they move to a subscription model they will lose many customers, especially those with Netflix et…

The rules recently changed and people now need a licence to watch content on BBC iPlayer.

If you own a licence and you're away from home you're allowed to use a device powered only by internal batteries to watch TV -- this is covered by your home licence.

Yes, this leads to ridiculous situations. You watch live tv on your phone? Fine, until you plug in your phone to charge and you're now breaking the law. I don't think anyone has been prosecuted for this type of use.

Re: TV detector van

#100

Post by notvplez » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

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.

Norway is doing the same thing starting next year, and I really like it, even though the content is increasingly getting predictably all-consuming right wing as each year goes by. ;)

I actually bought my very first TV (since I discovered I was able to download South Park and The Simpsons and watch it on my computer in the early 2000s) a few months ago hoping to make the cut off so I would be able to say I'd paid the old license at least once in my lifetime (the license is divided into two payments per year), but it seems like the webshop I bought it from was nice enough to not supply my address info to the licensing office in time as I haven't received any bill. Oh well.