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

241–250 of 345 posts

Re: TV detector van

#241

Post by tehlike »

tom_mellior wrote: post #234
tehlike wrote: post #58

Another way this could be possible is embedding inaudible-to-human-ears audio cues into the stream.

There was a story going around a while back that claimed that one of the big Silicon Valley companies was doing this: Bought TV ads that had such audio clues, then eavesdropped on you to detect them. I don't recall if it was Facebook's mobile app or Alexa that supposedly did the listening. A very quick web search didn't uncover anything concrete, but I'm somewhat certain I didn't dream this.

You didnt. It is a real thing. Solid way to do tv ads conversion tracking.

Re: TV detector van

#242

Post by noneeeed »

petercooper wrote: post #171
jdietrich wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regula…

"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." I think the concept of the license is rather alien to people in countries where all civic amenities are subject to the whims of democracy and the government. This is very much not true of many things in the UK (the BBC, the Army, numerous universities and schools, guilds and societ…

It's a bit of legal fiction really. A government with a sufficient majority that felt like taking on one of the more respected/loved institutions in the UK could absolutely abolish the BBC if it wanted to, and can set the budget of the BBC and set the license fee. The current conservative government forced the BBC to cut its budget while taking on additional costs, e.g. the over 75s free license, and the cost of running the World Service (previously funded by the Foreign Office),

In reality Parliament cannot create any institution that it cannot also eliminate or change if it wanted to. It's why QANGO stands for "Quasi-Automimous Non Governmental Organisation", and isn't "ANGO". These sorts of arrangements are just there to put the organisation at arms length and make it clearer when the government or Parliament are exerting their authority (which they have done many times with the BBC, such as forcing out the director general).

The quasi-independent model is actually pretty common in many countries, including as someone else mentioned the German public service broadcaster.

Re: TV detector van

#243

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

coldtea wrote: post #240
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because now you're proposing that people be charged for something even if they don't use it and don't want it.

Yes. In many countries that's how nation-wide infrastructure, services, art programs, and so on are funded. Not on a person per person basis. Not everywhere it's all about the individual and their whims. If the majority (well, through elected representatives) wishes to have and sustain a public good (whether a public broadcaster, or national health service, or arts grants, or whatever), individuals have no other say…

I don't mind that for infrastructure (roads, power grid) and core services (police, fire dept), but TV is not a requirement. Or rather, entertainment is not a requirement for life. If they want public funding for a channel for emergency broadcasts then I wouldn't object too loudly (other than questioning value vs radio and web).

Re: TV detector van

#244

Post by Nas808 »

The entire concept of being charged a fee for broadcast TV, going as far as having enforcers driving around in vans seems very strange to me. But on the other hand, I am very impressed with the quality of programming the BBC puts out.

Re: TV detector van

#245

Post by otterley »

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…

Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice - consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.)

You're trying to leverage a "peeping Tom" law to frustrate law enforcement, and that is unlikely to succeed.

The key qualifier here is "with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside." Law enforcement activities are unlikely to satisfy this prong.

Re: TV detector van

#246

Post by chimprich »

monkeynotes wrote: post #115
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…

The ads were hugely dystopian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NmdUcmLFkw I am an ex-pat and as an adult I am have become quite disillusioned with the UK and glad to have gotten out a decade ago. I miss nothing about England except my friends, and I'd feel sorry for them, but they all seem mostly happy with life. Paying a license to have a TV (and it's assumed you must watch TV), opt in porn on the internet, CCTV ev…

I hardly ever watch broadcast TV, but I don't mind paying the licence fee for the BBC website and radio stations.

There are plenty of things to dislike about the UK, but that seems like an odd list of things to highlight.

The porn opt-in thing has been pushed back for a year or two and will be quietly shelved when it's realised it's unworkable.

The supposedly omnipresent CCTV invariably seems to have been lost or turned off if you actually need to figure out e.g. who has nicked your bike.

I will grant you the Brexit shit-show, however; that is genuinely horrific.

Re: TV detector van

#247

Post by t0astbread »

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.

Isn't NZ part of the five eyes?

Re: TV detector van

#248

Post by soneil »

raverbashing wrote: post #239
soneil wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't begrudge the TV licence too much. I used to, and then I moved to Ireland - where I pay a roughly equivalent amount for a roughly equivalent licence, which funds RTÉ (and tg4? unclear) with nowhere near the same results. And still ads. It turns out the better half of Europe has TV licences in one form or another - but for some reason, we never hear about them. When the UK has to fund a state broadcaster, it's…

The enforcement actions and publicizing of the license in the UK seem to be the most dystopian, in Ireland it's a bit over the top as well But you're right, it is present in multiple countries, I think Germany and France just turned it into a household fee

I think there’s talk of moving to a household fee here too. Oddly, making it universal seems to be more acceptable than a consumption tax. On one hand, I can see the plus sides - there’s a lot more ways to consume national broadcasters now, and it seems strange that I should pay to receive the national broadcaster on my TV, but if I scrapped the TV and watched it on my laptop, I wouldn’t (I know the UK complicates that further than we do).

On the hand, it feels unintuitive that there’s now no way to opt out. But I’m not sure how we delineate universal taxes (eg, my taxes pay for schools but I don’t use them) vs consumption taxes (I don’t pay road tax because I don’t drive). We still ultimately need to pay for them somehow - I don’t drive, but I still depend on roads.

Re: TV detector van

#249

Post by coldtea »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #243
coldtea wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. In many countries that's how nation-wide infrastructure, services, art programs, and so on are funded. Not on a person per person basis. Not everywhere it's all about the individual and their whims. If the majority (well, through elected representatives) wishes to have and sustain a public good (whether a public broadcaster, or national health service, or arts grants, or whatever), individuals have no other say…

I don't mind that for infrastructure (roads, power grid) and core services (police, fire dept), but TV is not a requirement . Or rather, entertainment is not a requirement for life. If they want public funding for a channel for emergency broadcasts then I wouldn't object too loudly (other than questioning value vs radio and web).

>but TV is not a requirement. Or rather, entertainment is not a requirement for life

Well, life is more than the base "requirements". Humans are not wild animals that only understand bare utility, so some societies/states can acknowledge that and also provide some "non-requirements".

Besides TV (and cultural products in general) is not universally viewed as mere "entertainment", but also as information, culture building, citizen development, and so on. Some nation states do trust themselves to have capable people to provide quality programming -- whether many of their folks just care to watch reality shows and entertainment or not.

Re: TV detector van

#250

Post by t0astbread »

otterley wrote: post #245
dsr_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice - consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.) You're trying to leverage a "peeping Tom" law to frustrate law enforcement, and that is unlikely to succeed. The key qualifier here is "with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside." Law enforcement activities are unlikely to satisfy this prong.

Does that mean the police are allowed to invade my privacy like that if they're just "checking for potential illegal activity"?
Post reply on HN