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

211–220 of 345 posts

Re: TV detector van

#211

Post by cryptonector »

jarvist wrote: post #32
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…

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…

If you delayed the program onto your TV/laptop/whatever by some number of seconds, that surely would defeat the detector, though, of course, the detector could look for this. A better way to defeat it would be to play two programs on the same or two TVs near each other, then the two signals would interfere in a way that should confuse the detector.

Blackout curtains (which I recommend for other reasons), would work best though.

Re: TV detector van

#212

Post by scatters »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #169
jrjarrett wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you moved to, but is the US anything admirable lately? Guess I should cross the UK off the list of places to flee to.

I moved to NZ. Glad to get out of UK's weather and rat race. Went to Hawaii for couple weeks one year ago. Experienced culture shock. NZ is probably best place in the world.

> NZ is probably best place in the world.

Unless you're a woman of reproductive age.

Re: TV detector van

#213

Post by arprocter »

stordoff wrote: post #189
filoleg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

The law was abolished in 2013. You were also free to give false information - I know a couple of people who gave their postcode as SW1A 2AA (they had a TV licence, they just didn't want to give their address to the retailer). > The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967 (as amended) has been repealed, meaning that from 25 June 2013 onwards you no longer need to send us customer name and address details when you sell or rent…

Good to know - this was before '13

The silly thing was our house had a license, plus the TV in question was only ever used for a games console so never received TV signals

Re: TV detector van

#214

Post by JackFr »

scandox wrote: post #109
exhilaration wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I still know people in Dublin that have coin operated electricity, though I think nearly all of them have been moved to card based systems.

I've been to campsites where the showers are free, but the hot water requires coins. You really want to get your money's worth, but the fear of being lathered up and it going straight cold motivates you to be quick.

Re: TV detector van

#215

Post by Scoundreller »

eitland wrote: post #133
tantalor wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bad breathalyzer can be challenged in court as "not scientifically reliable". https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/22/ju...

Around here they are just used as part of a first step I think: if you fail it you'll be asked to go for a alcohol blood test.

And around here, they’ll just take you to the station for a more advanced breathalyzer test (Canada). Even though the police can compel a blood sample through a hospital, they don’t bother because the law doesn’t require it for a conviction.

Re: TV detector van

#216

Post by kurtisc »

oxidising wrote: post #12
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?

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.

The radio stations are free from commercial adverts but they're bound by the same logistical problems as other radio stations, meaning a decent proportion of airtime is listening to the same adverts for other BBC radio shows over and over.

Re: TV detector van

#217

Post by _-___________-_ »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #169
jrjarrett wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you moved to, but is the US anything admirable lately? Guess I should cross the UK off the list of places to flee to.

I moved to NZ. Glad to get out of UK's weather and rat race. Went to Hawaii for couple weeks one year ago. Experienced culture shock. NZ is probably best place in the world.

> NZ is probably best place in the world.

Unless you, say, like to travel, or want to live in a place with people from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Re: TV detector van

#218

Post by _-___________-_ »

djmobley wrote: post #49
_-___________-_ 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.

This is incorrect advice that could get someone convicted. A licence is required if you watch live TV on any channel. See: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ95

It’s not incorrect. Netflix and Amazon are not live TV. (Perhaps you missed the “etc” after BBC?)

Re: TV detector van

#219

Post by _-___________-_ »

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.

Which content you’re watching isn’t actually relevant, it’s where you are getting the content from. I could be watching a programme via an on-demand service at the same time as it’s shown on live TV, and I still wouldn’t need a license.
Post reply on HN