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

121–130 of 345 posts

Re: TV detector van

#121

Post by qilo »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #68
mytailorisrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix and Amazon prime are not TV and don't require a TV licence. https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104 But indeed, watching any channel on TV (not just the BBC) requires a licence.

I think they make it incredibly clear in their message though: If you’re watching live TV, you need to be covered by a TV Licence: a. if you’re watching on TV or on an online TV service b. for all channels, not just the BBC c. ...

> You don’t need a TV Licence if you only ever use these services to watch on demand or catch up programmes [...]

I would think that Netflix and Amazon are considered on demand services.

Re: TV detector van

#122

Post by roywiggins »

FireBeyond wrote: post #80
henryfjordan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The relevant SCOTUS case is probably Kyllo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States?wprov...

Re: TV detector van

#123

Post by noir_lord »

DanBC wrote: post #78
jfindley wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not been an issue for about 7 years, Netflix and Amazon Prime about cover me for anything I want to watch when I do decide to watch.

Re: TV detector van

#124

Post by jdietrich »

corndoge wrote: post #84
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?

The TV license is an admittedly odd way of funding a state broadcaster, but it works well enough that nobody has bothered to change it. One mass shooting on the scale of El Paso was enough to prompt a systematic overhaul of British firearms legislation; we just can't understand how so many American citizens can comfortably reconcile your extraordinarily high rate of gun violence with your exceptionally lax gun regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_(Amendment)_Act_1988

Re: TV detector van

#125

Post by smsm42 »

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…

Israel has similar system, and they regularly send scary letters to people not even owning the TV, and you have to prove it. If you don't, they could just deduct the fine from your bank account, and good luck proving anything or getting your money back, even if you never owned the TV and never watched public broadcast that TV license is supposed to pay for.

Re: TV detector van

#126

Post by implements »

DanBC wrote: post #21
wyldfire wrote: post #8

While reading I thought, "for sure we will get to the part of the article where the British realized their folly and discontinued the licensing." But that part never came. Brits: is this for real, does this still exist? Do you pay a license to use your TV? Is it only for OTA programming or using the device in general?

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…

"Installed" usually meant "aerial plugged in and stations tuned in".

Plug in and tune only the radio stations - that doesn't require a licence (radio isn't TV even when carried on a TV network, the TV effectively becomes a DAB radio).

Re: TV detector van

#127

Post by beenBoutIT »

umvi wrote: post #77
henryfjordan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The only things we (Americans) allow our government to exercise that amount of control over are psychoactive drugs/plants and female reproductive rights. With things like AR15s or TVs we require unfettered access with no paper trail, but if you want Adderall you'll need 3-sheet triplicate DEA forms and it's a federal crime in all 50 states to possess a growing number of naturally occurring plants and fungi.

Re: TV detector van

#128

Post by groundlogic »

notvplez wrote: post #100
groundlogic wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Danish public service bias to the left: ~ 0/5

Norwegian public service bias to the left: ~1/5

Swedish public service bias to the left: ~4/5

Re: TV detector van

#129

Post by ceejayoz »

dsr_ wrote: post #103
FireBeyond wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In California, Penal Code 647(j): (1) A person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occup…

I think you're really misinterpreting that.

All the example places given are ones you'd likely be frequently undressed. I'm not sure I'd argue I have an expectation of privacy in the living room with the curtains open - people walking on the sidewalk by my house see in mine all the time.

Re: TV detector van

#130

Post by smsm42 »

tantalor wrote: post #71
Scoundreller wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

A dog though is considered always reliable: https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/supreme-court-alert-by-a-t...

So maybe they should have used TV-sniffing dogs instead? :)

Post reply on HN