It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC claim to be using new detector vans.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Daily Fail - New Detector Vals

I know its a Daily Fail article, but it smacks of the kind of propoganda that the BBC would engage in.

The story alleges that the BBC have bought and equipped a number of vans with WiFi snooping technologies that can listen in on people's WiFi, decode the WiFi packets, and reassemble them to see if people are watching BBC iPlayer without a licence. They also claim that the BBC is RIPA authorised (I don't believe that they are) to conduct targetted surveilance against addresses with no TV Licence.

Firstly, for the non-UK people here, let me clarify a few points.

The UK requires all persons watching Live TV, be in possession of a current and valid TV licence, purchased from the BBC at a cost of £145.50 per year. The BBC get to trouser most if not all of this cash. It is classifed as a tax, therefore watching Live TV without one, is a criminal offence, one which carries the potential to result in a jail sentence. The BBC prosecute these cases using a company called Capita, to bring private prosecutions. They are not prosecuted by the CPS (the UK equivalent of the DA).

The term "Live TV" does not mean "via a TV set", it also covers TV watched online over the internet, or via a neighbours TV sender. Live TV is simply defined as "TV that is watched or recorded as it is being broadcast, or soon after". I believe the "soon after" means it is still considered "live" if you watch a stream of it within 45 minutes of its original broadcast. After 45 minutes, it is no longer considered "Live". I don't know for sure why I say 45 minutes, its just a number I got stuck in my head from somewhere.

You need a TV licence to watch ANY Live TV broadcast, not just the BBC. This includes ITV, C4, C5, Sky, Virgin, any of them. They all require a BBC TV Licence. This is due to historical reasons, the licence once funded the maintainence of the TV broadcast systems which all channels used. This is no longer the case, but the requirement for a licence remains.

The UK is NOT the only country that requires a TV licence. In fact most EU countries require one, they just tend not to whine about it as much as we do.

OK so, now back to the article in question. I have several issues with it.

1) I don't believe the BBC are RIPA certified. That means I don't believe they can legally engage in surveilance of this kind.
2) In order for their WiFi detectors to work, they would have to be able to break, in real time, all WiFi protocols. WEP, WPA, WPA2-Personal, WPA2-Enterprise. I don't believe this is possible. WEP is trivial to break, the others are not.

I was going to comment that not only that but they would have to be able to decrypt in real time, SSL, but I just checked, iPlayer is transmitted without SSL encryption, so that point is moot.


Anyway, over to you guys, any comments?




posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I remember seeing a TV license van in Liverpool. White van with a blue stripe along the side seeing "TV detector van". Has a fance roof rack that looked like antennae. I won't say that it is has real electronics, but that they could just drive these around areas that had a low license rate.

Wi-Fi is encrypted. That's going to take some pretty powerful computing technology to scan dozens of Wi-Fi channels simultaneously, decrypt them, filter out non-BBC internet traffic (they could seearch for BBC servers or maybe an ID string), but still they would be "unlawfully intercepting personal communications", which is not in their legal domain.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: BMorris

Another reason not to pay the fee , more wasted resources from the BBC while they continue to churn out the same old crap for consumers to consume.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   
The bbc claims?? The bbc also claim they are impartial!



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
The BBC are scum and need to disappear, they hound me trying to get TV licence money from me yet I don't watch TV and I never used the BBC iPlayer, I only BitTorrent a few TV shows from American networks that's about it, + im busy with work and life so I don't get much time to watch TV, so why is this private company trying to force me to buy their product when I don't want, need or use it.

They use so many dirty tricks and threats to get people to pay up even creating false debts on people who dont want their TV serveice then sending out bailiffs to repossess their stuff.


Back in 2001 they reported building 7 had collapsed before it really did and the building was still standing in the background.

Oh and I should mention the BBC protected pedophiles for decades, im sure I can find more on the BBC if I dig a little deeper.
edit on 6-8-2016 by NeoSpace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I call BS.

Unless your a idiot on a open WIFI there is no way to do this. Not outside GCHQ.

There are trying to scare the idiots.

Thing is a big bulk of people not paying there TV lience are eldery people or people on welfare with limited intelligence. So they will fool for such tricks.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Be aware that there is also anti-BBC propaganda. Right-wing press would love the BBC to break up, to be honest I'm split on the issue.

The Telegraph ran with the story too, but the register have come up with a counter.

The Register article


How exactly does identifying a TV set receiving a signal work "in the same way" as identifying iPlayer real-time video wrapped in potentially encrypted IEEE 802.11 frames? Unless, of course, you're massively oversimplifying the technology, like saying a jet engine works "in the same way" as a ten quid hairdryer. Moving air, heat, there's a spinning thing, you know, something like that. So no, the report doesn't show that TV Licensing has developed techniques to track iPlayer streamers. It doesn't show anything. We just have to take the Telegraph's word that Capita is monitoring people's wireless packets.


Analysis of wireless packets would only give Capita an educated guess (at best!) that someone may be live streaming.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell


Wi-Fi is encrypted. That's going to take some pretty powerful computing technology to scan dozens of Wi-Fi channels simultaneously,

Isn't each WIFI 'transmitter' on a different frequency? The van doesn't have to decode anything, just scan for a carrier signal. If it's authorized no problem. Like the parking authority uses TV cameras to search for license plates with outstanding tickets.

The WIFI van drives around until it gets a 'hit' (unauthorized access).
edit on 6-8-2016 by intrptr because: correction



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: BMorris


The UK requires all persons watching Live TV, be in possession of a current and valid TV license, purchased from the BBC at a cost of £145.50 per year.

Is that to own a TV or receive broadcasts? Like here in the states we have to have a Cable "license", too. Tiered packages through various cable or satellite companies can go anywhere from a few hundred to thousands a year.

What subscribed service / channels do you get for the yearly license fee?



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It is not a license for subscription services...its a licence you must have if you own a tv or any "receiving" equipment whether you watch it or not



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Thanks, so its a tax.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Thanks, so its a tax.


Yup its a tax.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Isn't each WIFI 'transmitter' on a different frequency? The van doesn't have to decode anything, just scan for a carrier signal. If it's authorized no problem. Like the parking authority uses TV cameras to search for license plates with outstanding tickets.

But surely this would only detect the fact that the household was using WiFi from its router, which doesn't need a licence as such. Detecting the fact that the signal included access to a TV website would be much more complicated.
edit on 6-8-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: intrptr
Isn't each WIFI 'transmitter' on a different frequency? The van doesn't have to decode anything, just scan for a carrier signal. If it's authorized no problem. Like the parking authority uses TV cameras to search for license plates with outstanding tickets.

But surely this would only detect the fact that the household was using WiFi from its router, which doesn't need a licence as such. Detecting the fact that the signal included access to a TV website would be much more complicated.

I don't know how that works, why I asked.

Here in the states our cable boxes on our tv sets have a specific id number encoded in the software, that would be present in the WIFI carrier signal I would think. If you have a wifi and its on, that would be evident to any remote device attempting to handshake, wouldn't it?



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Thanks, so its a tax.


Yup its a tax.

Lots of 'other' taxes over here, too. Franchise fees, permits, licenses, etc.

Gubment would take it all if they could.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   
So why not switch wi-fi off and access the internet using a cat5 or ethernet cable instead?



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BMorris

Aye there welcome to detect my micowave oven all they wish. LoL

TV detection vans are bullcrap!

But the technologies to do what the thread say have been around for sometime. Privacy is the issue and the rock that they perish on.
edit on 6-8-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   
The BBC is like most other places, it has ideological factions, sometimes it shows. The standard went down when the BBC started looking at ratings years ago, and making that part of its MO, as if they were indicators of what's good or bad.
As for licence detection, as somebody said, anybody using WIFI would easy enough to detect because you are basically broadcasting. Other ways would be that they are able to detect modulating broadcast carrier waves as they are reprocessed incoming to a TV set.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Thanks, so its a tax.

That's what they're trying to make ... obviously. I don't know why 'they' can't come right out and pick people's wallets.

If this story has an ounce of truth to it, the broadcasters are paying out way more for this investigative process than it could possibly be worth. Just consider the cost of human resources.

I'd bet the whole ploy is to fire up the sheople who willingly pay the 'fee' and then convert it to an 'equal tax' on everyone. In the end, they catch some folks (like me) who don't watch TV. And, as a bonus, maybe I'll go back to it (the brain washing) since I'm paying ... whether I want to or not.


edit on 682016 by Snarl because: clarity



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Its all a bluff.

There are targeting the elderly or dumb with this who are guilible.

There vans at best can just pick up EM signals.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join