BBC claim to be using new detector vans.

You get BBC1, 2 and 4, BBcNews, Parliament and i think there are a cple more on TV, the BBC also has at least 6 radio stations that are also funded by the licence.

This is not new when VCR's first came out people with b&w tv's had to pay for a colour licence as their vcr was receiving colour pictures!!

a reply to: crazyewok

If you are over 75 you can get a TV licence for free.

a reply to: BMorris

A few years back (When I live alone - Now live with parents who are severly disabled - either me moving back home or them going into a home and we all know how well the elderly and disabled are taken care of in those places) the TV license man came to my door and knocked, this is the conversation that we had on the first visit:

'Good afternoon sir, I'm here on behalf of the BBC concerning the television license fee. Do you happen to have one?'

(me) 'Can I see some sort of ID. I don't wanna give information at the door to any Tom, Dick or Harry'

(Him) 'Certainly sir' Hands me an ID card that says his name (We'll call him Kevin) and the words CAPITA (which represents the BBC) 'Is that okay sir?'

(me) 'Yes but that says you work for Capita not the BBC'

(him) 'We have the contract to carry out the checks'

(me) 'Okay thanks for coming' (I go to close the door he puts out his hand to stop it) 'Sir you can't just close the door on me. It's a criminal offense to ignore us when we come knocking'.

(me after a sarcastic chuckle) 'I'm being nice and polite but let me warn you. If you stop me from closing my door I will take that as an attempt to get into property without permission which under the laws of this country is forced entry' (he stepped away from the door) 'Thank you. Now, I get that you've got a job to do and an agenda to push but let me be clear: You will not get into my property. I will not answer any questions as to whether I watch television or not BUT I'll tell you that I do not support the BBC. I do not support a company that covers up terrorism, that protect a string of kiddie fiddlers and scares the elderly into thinking that they have to pay for something that they shouldn't be'
The TV license man stared at me for about half a minute and said 'So you're refusing to give me the information you are required to give?'

(Me) 'No. I'm refusing to give you, Capita and the BBC information that they have no legal right to. I am refusing to tell them what I have in my property and most of all I'm refusing to support an out of date tax that no longer serves the purpose that it used to'

(Man stares at me again) 'Okay sir. Well you'll probably get a fine letter and if you refuse to pay a court date letter through the mail. Are you happy with that?'

(Me) 'Do what you have to do.'

(TV license man turns walking away from the door) 'Okay thanks sir'

I will admit other than stopping me from closing my door, the guy was polite and not rude and seemed to realise pretty quickly that I wasn't going to give him any information. I was waiting for the letter so I could "return to sender" it but it has yet to show up. That was five years ago and I've been back home for six months and I'm still waiting.

TRUST ME, THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY THEY CAN CHECK WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM YOU OR A JUDGE.

a reply to: Dwoodward85

I had the family lawyers serve Capita with a cease and disiest order, after they started turning up on an almost weekly basis, demanding to be allowed to search the house. The order was valid for 5 years, preventing them from approaching my property unless they could prove that I had a TV set in operation. Speculative calls were not permitted. That order ran out last year, so I'm probably due a few more calls from them soon.

However, this story isn't really about the percieved powers of Crapita, its about if its technically feasable and legal for these WiFi detector vans to be in operation.

As far as I'm personally concerned, its just more FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt), but technically I guess they could have discovered a way to crack open WPA-PSK packets. Just very doubtful

Besides, the only wifi enabled device I have is my Kindle. They can snoop on my books all they want. All my other devices are connected via Cat6e.

a reply to: BMorris

This is the same as what they did back in the 70's & 80's with the fake detector vans. There is no way they can decrypt any encrypted signal as it's against the law in the U.K to do so without permission from the service owner. It's also illegal to use an open wifi network in the U.K without the owners permission.
So any evidence collected in such a manner could not be used as evidence in a court of law.

From the laws you have and things I've heard day to day life for the average Joe in the uk must just be miserable. You have very little rights at all.

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.

The big brother esque detector van adverts in the 80s were hilarious and a load of bollocks back then, I seriously doubt they have anything other than a clipboard, a laptop and a smarmy pratt inside those vans.

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.

a reply to: Snarl

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.

Then theres this 'other' side to it, maybe.

Surveillance of some sort.

a reply to: BMorris

Very true I'm prepared for their visit I have the same order but have been told by citizens advice (Free legal advice for those who don't know) to hold off from sending it because they might not have me on their radar. The thing about crack the WIFI I've done some reading online and a few privacy sites and it is basically illegal for them to even attempt to crack the code to get through the wifi the moment they do that they're breaking the law.

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. I'm assuming they'd go to the courts and say "Look we know they have a tv because they've stopped us from knocking on their door or even walking on the front path so we need the warrant". And yh I have a kindle as well but it isn't on the wifi as far as I know.

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
From the laws you have and things I've heard day to day life for the average Joe in the uk must just be miserable. You have very little rights at all.

Have you ever been here? You should try it some time. I don't actually know anyone who would describe their life as miserable. And in 50-odd years, I've never once heard anyone complain about the TV licence fee. What are these rights we have so few of?

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
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

Nope, absolutely incorrect.
Ownership of any equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV or streaming BBC content does NOT require a licence.
USING any equipment to watch broadcast TV or streaming BBC requires a licence.
It is a massive legal difference.

The detector vans are bull#. There has not been a single prosecution in the UK based on evidence from 'detector equipment', ever.

I haven't had a TV licence since 1999. I enjoy the rare visits from the private company employed to investigate homes without licences. I tell them to # off out of my yard or I will use reasonable force to eject them.
They have no more authority to ask any questions than say a Microsoft employee knocking the door and asking to check if your copy of windows is legit.

Stupid or naive people answer their questions and give them the time of day.

originally posted by: twfau
a reply to: crazyewok

If you are over 75 you can get a TV licence for free.

Don't forget about the 50% discount if your blind, just can't make this s##t up.

It's like giving bald people a 50% discount on shampoo.

www.tvlicensing.co.uk...

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.

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.

The big brother esque detector van adverts in the 80s were hilarious and a load of bollocks back then, I seriously doubt they have anything other than a clipboard, a laptop and a smarmy pratt inside those vans.

Shops and Rental places used to be required to pass your details on whenever you bought or rented a TV or video recorder. That hasn't been the case for over 15 years now though. They may still do so voluntarily, but theres no legal requirement to.

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.

So they have finally got round to replacing Bakelite knobs and props from the 1960's Doctor Who set with Laptops and props from the minority report set.....It still wont detect who's watching what. Anyone falling for this guff need there heads examined.

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...

SPAM removed by admin

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
From the laws you have and things I've heard day to day life for the average Joe in the uk must just be miserable. You have very little rights at all.

Actually our laws and rights is what makes this entire thing bollocks.