BBC claim to be using new detector vans.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
I read this today...Interesting.

A decent read on the subject matter

In other words the BBC are bull#ing.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yep, full of sheet lol.
The US members of ATS will tell you different though, you know, having guns no oppression over there, ever, at all.
lol

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
I read this today...Interesting.

A decent read on the subject matter

In other words the BBC are bull#ing.

Been doing a bit of digging around and it might not be as stupid as it first sounds.

Data is passed in packets. Think of a packet like a letter sent through the post. The packet header contains the source and destination address, much like a letter will have the address (sometimes including return address) written on the outside of the envelope. For RIPA purposes this would be "communications data" or "traffic data" - it's not the message itself, just the information about the who, what, and when of the message travelling through the system.

Does that packet header constitute data that is protected under RIPA?

The header would constitute traffic data under s 21(4), which is distinct from the message itself. RIPA allows for public bodies to intercept this traffic where certain conditions are met, and also allows for this authorisation to be given internally - ie, the public body can authorise itself to do it without needing to get a warrant or HO approval for each case.

What conditions trigger that power? The conditions are listed in s 22, but the most likely candidates would be s 22(1)(b) or (f).

(b)for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
...
(f)for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;

Does the BBC have this power? Apparently so, and they have confirmed that they use RIPA for investigating license evasion.

So, there certainly appears to be scope for the BBC to intercept the communication data (specifically traffic data) without needing to seek outside approval.

What happens if they confirm that a packet is being sent/received from the iPlayer server?

RIPA does not cover situations where the data is intercepted by the sender or recipient - which is obvious when you think about it. So, if the packet header confirms that the data is going to or from the iPlayer servers, the BBC (as sender or recipient) can intercept the entire packet - including all the data inside, not just the header - without falling under RIPA.

So, it appears there is a legal pathway for the BBC to send the enforcement teams out to capture packet headers from wifi broadcasts from target addresses, then inspect the contents of packets headed to/from their servers, all of which can happen without needing a warrant or permission from the HO.

Huh. Wasn't expecting that outcome.

I think it's a ridiculous amount of fuss and nonsense for the amount of money involved, but that's a different argument altogether.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Been doing a bit of digging around and it might not be as stupid as it first sounds.

Header packets are encrypted, and data is usually sent over 802.11n which has an effective range of about 190 meters. Simplifying the problem a bit because I don't want to do the trig, the maximum distance covered by a router will be 380 meters. If the truck is driving past a house at 40 kph so as to not cause traffic problems they will be in range of a network for 34 seconds. This means they would need to be in possession of a technology that can break WPA2 within 30 seconds. Considering it takes longer than that to break WEP this seems unlikely. This sort of technology would be kept as a state military secret.

I still say if they're doing something like this, most likely they're going to be looking at just the raw number of packets traveling over a network and then trying to further investigate the homes which don't have registered licenses but are broadcasting network traffic that looks similar to streaming video in terms of the pattern of data sent and how long it's sent.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Header packets are encrypted, and data is usually sent over 802.11n which has an effective range of about 190 meters. Simplifying the problem a bit because I don't want to do the trig, the maximum distance covered by a router will be 380 meters. If the truck is driving past a house at 40 kph so as to not cause traffic problems they will be in range of a network for 34 seconds. This means they would need to be in possession of a technology that can break WPA2 within 30 seconds. Considering it takes longer than that to break WEP this seems unlikely. This sort of technology would be kept as a state military secret.

If they’re specifically targeting a given property then they’re not going to be driving by and doing the job in 30 seconds, they are going to either sit outside hoping not to be seen or they will use a surveillance drone. Think about secure tower blocks which they can’t just walk into; how could they target somebody on the top floors? Well they’ll use a drone and if they land it on top of the block then nobody is going to know it’s there.

Another thing to bear in mind is that they could have goons everywhere - some might be proper employees but others could have been caught without a licence and have been blackmailed into snitching on their neighbours. Honestly, the amount of times I’ve had people I’m fairly acquainted with ask me if I have or watch the telly is shocking. Thus, a neighbour could indeed have a device which can do the job. You can test this by typing up random crap in notepad telling them you know they’re watching, and then wait for them to start banging the walls or throwing glass bottles out of their window. Seriously, this stuff actually happens.

Remember, this isn’t just about protecting revenue, that being maybe a few single percentiles of their total annual turnover in the case of iPlayer, rather it is about the live testing of military-grade surveillance hardware and techniques. They’ve been doing it since the sixties and the Ministry of Defence has been at their side all the while.

As I've said before and was completely ignored,why not just switch off wi-fi and watch over an Ethernet cable instead?

a reply to: grainofsand

So how easy would it be for the BBC to intercept and define the veracity/legitimacy of these "data packets" if one we're to employ the use of a VPN?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: grainofsand

So how easy would it be for the BBC to intercept and define the veracity/legitimacy of these "data packets" if one we're to employ the use of a VPN?

Exactly, ridiculous and toothless claims which will only affect people who are already the type who admit watching TV when the goons knock the door.
I'll miss their visits, they are fun.
I enjoy seeing the fear in their eyes when I demand they must leave my property before I use reasonable force to eject them.
...almost disappointed that they always shat out and leave immediately.

...but of course we are controlled peasants owned by the Crown lol
[/rolling eyes]

Never mind all the electronic gadgetry which all you electronic guys say can work, I can tell you how the vast majority of non-licence payers get caught. The people detecting have area lists (they work certain areas one at a time) of people that have TV licences, therefore they know all the addresses that do not have licences. They sit outside these premises and actually look for signs of a working TV (flicker on curtains etc.). If they see signs they will approach the property and listen for signs of a TV, then they will knock on the door and confront the occupiers. 99 out of 100 people will admit their guilt. JOB DONE. Without ANY high fangled electronic gadgetry.

a reply to: Imagewerx

They’ll still know it’s linked to a particular property. To be honest, I think the main issue here is the potential for people to be using a Wi-Fi connection to which they are not entitled access to or indeed a public network. In other words, there could be two neighbours both without a licence and one of them is using the other’s network without their knowledge and watched iPlayer on it - so who gets busted for licence evasion? It’s beside the point anyway because they will probably still need some kind of visual evidence to support a warrant, and that normally comes in the form of intercepting an image from a monitor (not that they’ll ever disclose how they do that to a court). Suffice to say, they can find out no matter if it’s over the wire, wireless or just on a plain telly.

a reply to: crayzeed

Maybe that is true but there are a few problems...

Some genuine evaders could live in a property which is difficult to monitor, such as atop a tower block.

Some, evaders or otherwise, may just never answer their door to anybody, let alone TV Licensing.

TV Licensing fail to understand that some people do not have a telly but they will hound them for years.

After years of getting nowhere they will eventually escalate the matter to using military-grade equipment.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: grainofsand

So how easy would it be for the BBC to intercept and define the veracity/legitimacy of these "data packets" if one we're to employ the use of a VPN?

Data goes like this
Your computer
Your modem/router
Your ISP's server
Your destination

A VPN is another server inserted between the ISP and the destination, so from your destinations point of view all data is coming from their server rather than your ISP's and from your ISP's point of view all data is going to the VPN rather than various websites.m A drive by detector van is looking at wireless radio signals coming from your router and aimed at your computer.

So a VPN wouldn't be a defense if they're already looking at your home. Using an all wired network as another poster mentioned would. But wireless has certain conveniences that I assume you don't want to give up.

a reply to: Aazadan

I just don't let them in, on the odd occasion that i have accidentally answered the door i simply remove there implied right of access and tell them to be on there way or ile have them removed.

Funny story, last time i encountered the TV licensing scum it was early morning around 8:30-9am. Woke me up out a sleep and being a guy, and being awakened in such a fashion i answered the door in my boxers with accompanying rager. LoL

I don't think the fellow knew what to make of me calmly but sleepily removing his implied right of access with a smile plus visible hardon on show.

My Mrs who was behind the door listening was just about in hysterics when i closed the door.

a reply to: andy06shake

Some people keep a stick behind the door, I won’t bother to ask where you keep yours.

a reply to: IllegalName

Do you know the Police can actually prosecute you if you keep a stick or any other type of ofensive weapon behind your door or at hand or stored in a strategic location even in your own home. Its a legal mine field but it has been known to happen. Think stiffys are still legal all the same.