BBC claim to be using new detector vans.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Actually did laugh out loud!
Good to see you're alive fella, been crap argument opposition going on in threads I've been in last few days.
....now to think of something to disagree with you about...

Patience. Another referendum is right around the corner no doubt. Has Article 50 been triggered yet. What's the hold up.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I blame BBC Scotland

originally posted by: crazyewok

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

Capita are essentially a spy agency and most probably work with GCHQ.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport

its a licence you must have if you own a tv or any "receiving" equipment whether you watch it or not

That is totally untrue - owning a television does not require a licence, receiving a broadcast does.

Anyway, so far as detection goes in respect of iPlayer there would likely be two main ideas...

1) Checking the IP Address of people watching iPlayer to see if the household has a licence.
2) If not, they would probably run their usual detection methods to capture the monitor.

It’s worth keeping in mind, and as has already been said, that IP Addresses are generally dynamic nowadays so it wouldn’t automatically qualify that a particular IP is linked to a post code, that would require further checks which would be within the realms of crime prevention.

As to the legality of this, again there are two things to consider: first and foremost they would surely need reasonable suspicion, that is linking an IP Address to an unregistered household - routinely snooping on internet use does not sound very legal to me. Then there are the ethics of hacking wireless signals, but I must admit that Capita are quite likely to have the authority to do this (it shouldn’t be legal at all, but it probably is).

As for “detector vans”, they are nothing but a means to scare people. If they are in the street actively trying to detect an unlicensed broadcast then they are surely not going to want to be seen. Either way, these days they tend to use drones and quite possibly the WK450. Since they can and do use military-grade hardware to do these checks then it could well be a trivial matter, along with help from say GCHQ, to decrypt WiFi signals and even more so if they do indeed use drones which would normally be used in say Afghanistan or Iraq.

a reply to: IllegalName

Thing is you need a warrent for any of those types of surveillance and they are very hard to come by and can only be issued via the home office and unless its terrorist related they are stingy with giving them out.

a reply to: IllegalName

I'm afraid you're wrong......A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment (e.g. TVs, computers, laptops, tablets, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders) to watch or record television programmes, as they are being shown on TV

However that changes on 1st September from "installing or use of television receiving equipment" to " watching or recording live tv on whatever equipment including iphones laptops Apple TV Amazon Fire etc" including catch up tv BBC Iplayer

a reply to: crazyewok

The trouble is that if TV Licensing have reasonable suspicion that a particular household has watched iPlayer, that is by matching an IP Address to it, and it does not have a licence then there is probably a good chance that they will be able to move forward to whatever the next step is. The next phase might be capturing the light from a monitor and that is what they generally do anyway without a warrant, but if they need to dissect a wireless signal then a court may well grant them that warrant. It may well be that they just wouldn’t ever get a warrant for such a thing, but then again we’re talking about a company which can pretty much record a married couple having sex in the privacy of their own home so I wouldn’t rule anything out with those goons.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

If you’re saying that, at least currently, I would require a licence to simply own a computer, or maybe for it to be online, then I can assure you that it is not I who’s wrong. I could even have a television set linked to CCTV over a microwave feed and still not have to buy one. The licence is only needed in two scenarios: 1) if a live broadcast is being received, or 2) to connect a capable device to a television antenna - if neither of these are the case then the licence is not needed. Simply having a working TV aerial on top of the house I think is a grey area, there would probably be claims that a licence is required but it’s highly unlikely that anybody would be prosecuted without any proof that a device actually received anything. For example, I live in community housing and presumably the socket in my lounge works, which is connected to the communal aerial on the roof - please don’t tell me I thus require a licence because it is simply untrue as I do not own the property and cannot remove the aerial as it belongs to the landlord, and neither is anything connected to it.

If you share the tinternet with several others in the same building it would be impossible to prove who's watching what on the same IP unless there is a admission of guilt from one or all parties.

a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

My heritage is all from the uk and no I haven't been there yet but so far everything I've read from the oppressive family Court system to the over bearing nanny state laws makes me glad my grandparents moved.
The fact you need a license to watch TV also just seems ridiculous to me as well. I pay a fee to a provider and that's expensive enough.
Is it also true debt collectors go tight to people's houses and take stuff there too?

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

My heritage is all from the uk and no I haven't been there yet but so far everything I've read from the oppressive family Court system to the over bearing nanny state laws makes me glad my grandparents moved.
The fact you need a license to watch TV also just seems ridiculous to me as well. I pay a fee to a provider and that's expensive enough.
Is it also true debt collectors go tight to people's houses and take stuff there too?

We used to have to pay tax for sunlight... Window Tax

originally posted by: IllegalName
a reply to: crazyewok

The trouble is that if TV Licensing have reasonable suspicion that a particular household has watched iPlayer, that is by matching an IP Address to it, and it does not have a licence then there is probably a good chance that they will be able to move forward to whatever the next step is. The next phase might be capturing the light from a monitor and that is what they generally do anyway without a warrant, but if they need to dissect a wireless signal then a court may well grant them that warrant. It may well be that they just wouldn’t ever get a warrant for such a thing, but then again we’re talking about a company which can pretty much record a married couple having sex in the privacy of their own home so I wouldn’t rule anything out with those goons.

Anyone with a brain cell can mask there IP.

If your stupid enough to watch TV over the net without a licence while not masking your IP you deserve every thing you get.

As for warrents? They can rarely get them now to force entry to propertys and they are the easiest warrent to get . Warrents to access private internet data are extremly guarded. A private company will likely never be issued one.

a reply to: BMorris

Is it possible that what the vans are doing isn't breaking the signal and looking at what you're downloading, but rather are looking for active connections that are using data at a rate you would expect of watching TV or streaming video?

It should be possible to capture how many packets are going over the network, even if you're not reading them, and extrapolating what a person is doing from there. For example, if I sit somewhere and watch the traffic going over your network, and I see it's a steady stream of packets that matches up to the rate you would consume data if you were watching something in HD, I can conclude that you were watching television.

Whether that's enough to prosecute on or not would require some legal knowledge, but it's the same concept as the US programs which spy through metadata. If you know how much data is going through a network and when, you can narrow down what the person was doing. Movies, TV, and online games all use steady but different amounts of data. Web browsing follows it's own pattern too, in that it's lots of data at once in short bursts every few minutes/seconds depending on the page.

According to the news today, when Parliment queried the BBC and invited them to a comittee to explain the capabilities of their new equipement, what data they would be capturing, and the legal basis they would use using for the warrantless capture, the BBC issued a statement that it was just a technical exercise, and wouldn't be deployed in the forseeable future.

Thereby evading the need to explain themselves to the Government.

So they were either totally BSing, or they knew what they were planning was less than legal.

Unfortunately I read about it on my cellphone, while on the bus, and now I want to quote the story, I can't find it again.

a reply to: BMorris

Seems like they got called out on there BS so they back tracked

a reply to: crazyewok

Lol, it's amazing what bull# some people actually believe.
Same with all the folks in the thread who can't understand the difference between not needing a licence to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast or streamed TV, and needing a licence when USING equipment to receive broadcast or streamed TV.

Then the attempts of smug criticism from some US members like we are peasant subjects controlled by the Crown, socialist state blah.
I haven't had a licence since 1999, I mock the representatives of the company employed to investigate homes without a licence. I actually enjoy it and would be disappointed if they stopped calling once a year or so.

I know one thing, any taxes/charges being enforced in the US would not be the chuckle of fun that it is here.
Guns shoved in your face, people would be shot for sure, just pick any day on ATS and see a cop killing/brutality...yeah, who are the ones who are really controlled?
Being arrested and fighting authority in the UK is not at all scary. I prefer our way of life where we can argue without fear of 'the man' - it is the US which is really controlled with fear, not the UK.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
From what I've been told the shop forwards your information when you buy a TV which is why they ask for name and address. TV licensing then runs it against their database to see if you've paid the fee then send the minions out.

That used to be the case under the old Wireless Telegraphy Act but it was repealed a few years ago. I don't think there's still a notification requirement in place.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: woogleuk
No, they are not, it is impossible.

The only way they would know you were watching iPlayer would be to trace your IP, which would only lead them to your ISP, then your ISP would have to agree to give them the information that you were using that IP address at that moment in time.

With millions of people using the internet every day, and your IP address changing regularly, this would become a near (but not) impossible task.

Plus it you need a warrent thats the home office needs to signs off on. No way would they handle the case load. Plus thats falls under the CPS which has nothing to do with BBC procecutions.

Nope, someone from the BBC (or their representatives) just needs to go to a magistrate. No Home Office approval or CPS involvement needed. They might do that for other reasons but it doesn't appear to be a requirement for a warrant.

s 366 of the Communications Act 2003

366 Powers to enforce TV licensing

(1)If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed,
(b)that evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on premises specified in the information, or in a vehicle so specified, and
(c)that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is satisfied,

he may grant a warrant under this section.

(2)A warrant under this section is a warrant authorising any one or more persons authorised for the purpose by the BBC or by OFCOM—
(a)to enter the premises or vehicle at any time (either alone or in the company of one or more constables); and
(b)to search the premises or vehicle and examine and test any television receiver found there.

(3)Those conditions are—
(a)that there is no person entitled to grant entry to the premises or vehicle with whom it is practicable to communicate;
(b)that there is no person entitled to grant access to the evidence with whom it is practicable to communicate;
(c)that entry to the premises or vehicle will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;
(d)that the purpose of the search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless the search is carried out by a person who secures entry immediately upon arriving at the premises or vehicle.

...

(6)A person authorised by the BBC, or by OFCOM, to exercise a power conferred by a warrant under this section may (if necessary) use such force as may be reasonable in the exercise of that power.

originally posted by: BMorris

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: BMorris
I'll add, I would not remove their right of access (walking up the garden path, ringing bell, phone calls) because I've seen some people online saying that this is what they need to be able to get a warrant to enter the property with police.

A lawyer friend of mine, barrister actually, informs me that the so called "Revocation of the Implied Right of Access" has no legal founding in law, and has already been tossed out by a number of courts, and that I shouldn't believe everything written in peoples blogs.

She tells me that people have an irrevocable right in the UK, to walk up your garden path and knock on your door. They cannot deviate from the defined route, as that would be trespass, but you cannot revoke their right to follow that clearly defined route. Only a restraining order issued by a court can ban them from entering your property by that defined path.

There is some debate about this. The issue usually arises in matters of distress - in other words, where bailiffs have an existing right to come to the property seeking to enforce an existing order for liability. The landowner can't withdraw the right of access because the court order supersedes it, rendering it useless.

However, it's very wrong to say there is no legal basis for revocation. Davis v Lisle [1936] is (or was) the leading authority on this. Even if someone has implied consent (ie your milkman has implied consent to walk up the garden path and put milk bottles on your doorstep) that can still be withdrawn and the person becomes a trespasser.

The issue, however, is enforcement. Even if someone is trespassing, there's little that you can do except tell them to leave and, if necessary, use reasonable force to escort them off the property. Trespass (in this meaning) isn't a criminal offence and you can't realistically sue someone for trespassing unless there has been some damage/loss - and even then it's a long and expense process with very little benefit except to the lawyers involved.

So, while the "Revocation of Implied Right of Access" does have a valid legal basis, it's of dubious real value and it's far more accurate to say that it's mostly a waste of time.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Thats a search warrent.

They are diffrent from the warrents needed to access your Internet data.

Even then the warrents are not eady to come by from magistrates.

Even our parliament just called the whole thing BS.

I read this today...Interesting.

A decent read on the subject matter

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: EvillerBob

Thats a search warrent.

They are diffrent from the warrents needed to access your Internet data.

Even then the warrents are not eady to come by from magistrates.

Even our parliament just called the whole thing BS.

Ahh yes, my apologies. I was mixing it up with the other post about access to the property.

However, RIPA exempts the BBC from needing a warrant to intercept data between the house and the iPlayer servers. The issue is that it's pretty difficult to intercept just that data without intercepting all the protected data around it.