It sounds like everyone in authority believes that the use of detector vans is regulated by RIPA. I think this is due to section 2:
(2)For the purposes of this Act, but subject to the following provisions of this section, a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if, he—
(a)so modifies or interferes with the system, or its operation,
(b)so monitors transmissions made by means of the system, or
(c)so monitors transmissions made by wireless telegraphy to or from apparatus comprised in the system,
as to make some or all of the contents of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication.
The detector vans are rumored to work by picking up the IF of the TV's heterodyne receiver. I guess this counts as "interception" of a signal, even though it's a signal that was publicly broadcast in the first place.
This could all be cleared up by a clear statement from someone about what surveillance is taking place, but of course everyone loves secrecy and there's no honesty in public debate.
There is no reliable evidence that they exist. The BBC likes to perpetuate this myth for obvious reasons.
EDIT: sorry, I mean there is no reliable evidence that they are actually used for enforcement. Several vans do exist that were used in TV advertising to start this myth. Whether they worked or not is very debatable. (Certainly their supposed detection mechanism wouldn't work with LCD TVs, now more common than CRT TVs.)
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/55922/response/164153... however is a FOI response from TVL (run by Capita IIRC) that "TVL uses detection evidence when applying for
search warrants". But "detection evidence" is not defined and probably means the guy in the van seeing a CTV connection/aerial/dish or looking through the window and seeing a TV???
If you buy a TV and plug it in but do not connect it to an aerial or satellite, you do not need a licence.
You need a TV licence to install or use a television receiver per the Communications Act 2003, Part 4, Section 363[1].
The definition of a "television receiver" in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004[2] is:
"[…] any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."
And "receiving a television programme service" is
"receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service."
TV Licensing have it more simply[3] as:
"If you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or an online TV service, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device."
But:
"If you don't watch TV at all, or you only ever watch on demand or catch-up TV, you can tell us you don't need a TV Licence."
Sometimes they'll do a follow up inspection to make sure. But yes, thanks for correcting this common misconception. Although I can see why people still think otherwise as the change in the law from what gress said wasn't shouted from the rooftops when it changed :)
That's a myth. The current legislation [0] says you only need a license to watch programmes when "received at the same time (or virtually the same time)" as broadcast - it doesn't say anything about requiring one to have a device which can receive live broadcasts. If that's the case you would be required to have a TV license to own a PC, as they can also receive live broadcasts.
TVL have the largest civilian database in the UK. They got into trouble for using that database to run billboard ads - "3 houses in this street do not have a TV licence".
Nice find. That site explains the situation clearly: the vans exist, but don't do any "detecting". Instead they spend their time parking them in prominent places to perpetuate this myth. http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm
The backs of the vans are empty, and are sometimes parked in prominent places with a lot of passing pedestrian or vehicle traffic, e.g. supermarket car parks, as a reminder/scare-tactic for people to buy a licence, in locations where TV licence evasion is suspected.
This is how TV detection works:
1. TV Licencing (actually the BBC, see below) maintain a database of every address in the UK, compiled from various sources.
2. The vast majority of addresses are covered by a TV licence, because, seriously, who hasn't got a TV.
3. The remaining addresses without a licence may be randomly select for investigation ('detection'), and an investigator sent to the address in a 'detector van' (just used for transport), or may be selected on the basis of 'intelligence', i.e. snitching neighbours, disgruntled employees, etc.
4. If the address doesn't qualify for a TV licence, e.g. non-permanent resident of a static caravan or other extenuating circumstances, then the address details are amended as such in the database.
5. If the address would normally qualify for a licence, then the 'detector' (human investigator) will see if there is evidence of watching TV, and may knock on the door to talk to the occupants.
6. At this point, TV Licencing can, if satisfied, mark the address as (temporarily) not requiring a TV licence, or pursue further action, e.g. legal action. Periodically, the address will be sent letters reminding them that they don't have a licence, and should probably get one, regardless.
No 'electronic detection' equipment is used, other than laptops and PDA-type devices that have access to the address database, or portions of it. These are the rumoured 'handheld detectors'.
That's it. All the detection equipment rumours are just that: scare-mongering tactics by the BBC.
"TV Licencing" itself is maintained as a brand distinct from the BBC to avoid tarnishing the image of the BBC's main brand with such rumours of snooping, scare-tactics, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC itself has not actually used any RIPA powers, but is just spreading the rumour that it has done so. Hence the vagueness of the report.
UK Retailers of equipment capable of receiving a TV signal are (or at least were, back in the early '80s) obliged to take the name and address of anyone purchasing one, these details are / were regularly submitted to TV licensing authorities.
I don't have a TV and I've not had a letter for years. It's hillariuos when people from call centres in India call to sell TV related services. Their script clearly doesn't have that contingency catered for.
About 15 years ago, there was a TV Licensing van that was often parked around the corner from my house. I vaguely recall that it said "detection unit" on the side or something similar, and it had heavily-tinted windows.
However, if you went right up to it and peered hard enough through the windows, you could see that it was just a regular minibus with seating and no equipment inside.
In support of your stance, Danish Radio (Danish version of BBC, including TV, radio, internet etc.) have not only admitted to using fake detector vans, but even went so far as to by on the roof taxi ads displaying a message akin to "This is a detector van"
The linked FOI answer contains the sentence "I can confirm that TV detector vans do exist". Admittedly that's a claim rather than evidence, and it's not inconsistent with them being fake vans. Again, unaccountable surveillance.
However, they have never been used for enforcing TV licensing. They are entirely a publicity stunt / a myth put about by the BBC to scare people into buying a license.
We had vans with antennas like that driving around in Germany in the 80s. Similar TV licence, similar myth. I'm sure they just measured signal strength to find out if they have to add more cell towers.
>The BBC declined to give any details about its use of RIPA. It argued that "maintaining uncertainty" about enforcement practices was part of its strategy to keep evasion to a minimum. //
Hmm.
On a side note where I work we used to get calls from the music licensing authorities, I always thought they just wanted to listen for background sounds so they could send in enforcers to fine us. I wonder if the BBC are doing that (perhaps buying recorded calls from marketeers, or such, and parsing for TV sounds??) - that would fall in to intercepting communications I feel.
Has anybody ever reverse engineered the Nielsen (or the UK equivalent) audio watermarking codes that their automated survey apps rely on to record what shows and ads are viewed, and when (DVR)?
A perfect example of bad cases making bad law and bad law then being abused.
British truants and TV watchers alike now have the honour of being treated as terrorists. The fact that it's not some overreaching surveillance body, but a pedestrian mob like the BBC who is abusing this law so blatantly, shows how badly made this law really is. Obviously, it has no safeguards against this kind of misuse. The “lawmakers” who built this travesty should be sent back to primary school.
> British truants and TV watchers alike now have the honour of being treated as terrorists.
RIPA was never about 'terrorists'. It was designed to harmonise access to investigative information across Government-affiliated organisations, including local authorities.
'Harmonise' in this context of course meant 'grant full privileges', usually only requiring the head of the organisation to sign-off. Very occasionally would the Secretary of State have to be bothered.
The use of RIPA by the BBC, for example, is not a surprise, it was a scenario foreseen during the consultation period. But the bill was not modified, because that was the intent.
Source: I provided input as part of informal groups during RIPA consultation.
Many peopel might not know that the IRA bad lands (think steve earls copperhead road) where no go areas for quiet a few "crown servants" such as the BBC and The revenue man
Arently a substatial minority of NI poluation where some what shocked post good friday when they where told "ah you have to start paying like every one else now"
Let us pause for a second an think what could possibly happen with anti-terrorism laws like this in not-so-advanced democracies where there is little protection of the average citizen from the abuse of state power.
Let us also think about how the leading democracies export the "democratic software" (laws) and they get copied/cited in not-so-advanced democracies in making their own laws. It is very easy for a barely-democratic state to cite a western democracy's law as a precedence.
Let us then think about how many people live under democratic laws (and under strong rule of law) and compare that to the number of people without that.
Depressing.
I fear that these badly written anti-terrorism laws are like software flaws that will flow from system to system and harm many more people than we can see right now.
> anti-terrorism laws like this in not-so-advanced democracies where there is little protection of the average citizen from the abuse of state power.
Ummm... This is about Northern Ireland, which had an undeclared low simmering civil war for much of the late 20th century, with abuses by state powers (imprisonment without trail, soliders shooting protesters on the streets), active paramilitary groups killing civilians and state actors, and undemocratic processes (gerrymandering of votes).
I think we know what happens when the UK/NI state wants to abuse one part of the population.
We went for a weekend to Belfast (which is a great place to visit) but I must admit I was rather surprised to find that there are still automatic barriers in place that close the roads between the Falls and Shankhill Roads.
One thing is for sure - UK needs a proper Constitution. It seems the government is treating the population lately as if it has no rights.
While in US at least the government tries to pretend that it only spies on "foreign" (with its own interpretation of foreign) communications, because it knows otherwise it would be unconstitutional, in UK Cameron has just said that "nothing should be hidden from the government". And the sad part is there's nothing stopping the UK government/Parliament from passing such a law, nullifying what should be an absolute basic right to privacy everyone on Earth should have.
When there's no privacy there's no freedom. And governments now try to get rid of that freedom under the false pretense that it will offer more security instead (it won't, or at very least the trade-off between terrorist violence and government violence won't be worth it in the long term).
I think maybe "terrorism" is just the new term for crime of all levels now. Because crime makes people afraid right? Perhaps I'm terrified that if too many of those rotten tax dodgers skip out on thier tv tax there might not be another season of Doctor Who. Scary stuff.
From the sounds of it ("detection equipment") this appears to be the use of detection vans that was done for decades prior to RIPA, but that now is being done subject to RIPA because RIPA covers that activity.
RIPA is an awful, awful law for a lot of reasons, but the article seems to sensationalise it in that RIPA does not appear to have suddenly allowed the BBC (or rather TV Licensing, which is a separate organization) to do something they weren't allowed to do before in this case (unless something much worse is hidden behind the "detection equipment" name).
It could be other things. They maybe are asking ISPs to look for packets related to live viewing of TV over the internet, that seems to fit the RIPA descriptions too. Indeed I'd be surprised if Capita weren't doing/looking to do that as they could potentially find lots of people to send nastygrams to that way.
It's an offense to watch or record transmitted television stations in your home without a TV license.
But it's perfectly legal to own a TV and use the on-demand portions of iPlayer (everything apart from viewing the currently-being-broadcast channel streams), Netflix, Google Play, 4od, Demand 5, DVDs, Blurays, etc etc.
This is what I do. The TV Licensing website has a page where you can provide them with your reasons for not owning a TV license. This page explains (implicitly) all the things you can do sans license. And, hopefully, filling this in makes them less likely to pester you (I haven't had any contact from the licensing people).
Here is the text from TV Licensing:
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
Note how the second sentence arguably introduces confusion. You don't need a license if you use a computer but don't "Watch or record TV as it's being broadcast".
(for 'tomp') yes it's legal to use iPlayer with no license, apart from that part of iPlayer where you can watch what's showing right now on for example BBC1.
Netflix has no equivalent of a broadcast channel so all of it is usable without a license.
Wait, I can't quite parse your last statement... is it legal to watch BBC on demand and Netflix/DVDs without a licence, or not? (I suspect the former, but then I know nothing about this law.)
It is legal. The only time a license is required is when you're streaming 'live' television by any means.
Effectively what this means is you can't dodge a license to watch television by watching live (By live I mean stuff that would be on the TV if you turned it on at that moment) TV through your iplayer. In Britain (not sure about other places), the iPlayer has a button to allow you to tune in to live TV. It's when you click that button you are in breach of licensing law.
The whole thing is stupid and archaic, but that's the price we pay for ad-free state TV.
There seems to have been some progress here, last time I read the relevant Act I'd swear that it referred to the legality of having "receiving means" (not sure on that wording, I do have bad memory!!). So you were technically in breach if you had a TV with an aerial, it wasn't necessary to show you watched it?
Am I misremembering?
This change is actual encouraging for me as the new box I got to use for catch up services I think allows live TV (as a paid extra) and so I was concerned I might be accused of being in breach of the Act, but it seems not. Always nice to know.
IANAL, but it seems a little bit of a silly idea to criminalize owning a TV. For that matter, 'receiving means' surely also includes having a laptop or tablet in the house, as that's a means of receiving live TV.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I know that I had to buy a TV license when I moved in with my SO, but I'm not sure if that's because we bought a TV (we never watch it) or if my SO just did the necessary paperwork out of habit.
Also not a lawyer, but I believe similar to other criminal cases, the investigator, then the prosecutor, then the judge and/or jury would need to make subjective judgement calls to decide whether or not to move ahead with prosecution, based on the specific situation.
For example a TV with built-in tuner and no other equipment (no DVD player, no console, etc etc) they would likely be able to argue that you do watch live TV even if you weren't witnessed doing it, whereas a TV that isn't connected to any aerial but is connected to an Xbox you could probably convince them otherwise without even leaving your own home.
I suspect that they would also lean towards giving the benefit of the doubt, because it's such a minor crime that if there's a chance you'd be found innocent in court, or that they'd have to spend time investigating further, it's a much better use of their time to move on to the next person.
>having a laptop or tablet in the house, as that's a means of receiving live TV. //
Well that's probably why the law was updated (if indeed it was) - the same rules used to apply to PC TV-tuner cards too though, having a tuner card was considered "receiving means" and meant license was needed for any premises where that computer was plugged in.
We have a TV but haven't had broadcast TV for many years, since our aerial blew down and we had no money to get it fixed - we stopped paying the license then as we no longer had receiving means. Just watch DVDs, iPlayer and the like (and use it for Wii).
As an aside, you can use a laptop to watch live TV anywhere (in UK), as long as you have a license for your "home"; but if you plug it in (eg to charge) then the premises you're at need a license!
So even if you don't plug in, say you're on a train or in a park, you can't legally watch live TV without a license for your home? I remember 15 years ago people (not many admittedly) having battery-powered handheld TVs - if a homeless person were to use one of those on the street would he be breaking the law?
Can confirm that the law changed from "owning equipment capable of viewing" to the actual act of viewing in 2003. You can fill in a form online to confirm that your TV is not used to watch lice broadcast. When I did that at a previous address with flatmates, they did send an inspector around a few months later to confirm. After a polite encounter to basically simply confirm that "we don't watch broadcasted signals" we were told that all was fine and that we wouldn't be bothered again.
It is legal to watch shows that have already been broadcast without a license, and it's legal to watch netflix/DVDs without a license.
It is only illegal to watch or record live TV broadcast without a license. This applies regardless of whether you use a TV or BBC iPlayer to receive the broadcast. IANAL etc.
Well the definition of a crime is whatever the law states, so yes it does fit, the same as not paying required income tax does.
You're welcome to argue it shouldn't be - either that license fees shouldn't be charged at all, or that it should be changed from a criminal to a civil matter (as another comment said is happening) - but argue one of those rather than just saying it isn't a crime.
It also helps not arguing it's bad because some groups are in favour of it (though you're not the one who raised this)
I'm against paying for a license to watch TV, that's my stance, for the simple reason you can have a TV for more reasons than just watching broadcast TV.
It's common in many countries, but done in slightly different ways. In Ireland, one must have a licence if you own a TV that could recieve broadcast signal, regardless if you want it. Otherwise people would claim they don't watch live TV and not have to pay.
I'm surprised they even need to clarify that it is ok to play video games without a license (why on earth would it not be ;p).
I'm also surprised that they require a license for viewing any live internet stream produced by any (even foreign) producer, without having a UK license -even if the actual producer wants to make it freely available!
Paying a third, totally irrelevant entity in order to enjoy the online streaming of a foreign TV channel that doesn't require one, just doesn't make sense.
I happily pay for a TV license because I am happy with the quality of BBC, however if I wasn't watching on-line TV streams from parties that actually benefit from the licensing fees, I would blatantly ignore that law and troll them.
Honestly I'm not surprised and I don't think it'll change now that it's been exposed. It's a good example how these powers can be abused for idiotic reasons and why we need to be wary of them.
They used to have some of that equipment. Amongst other things, looking for 15625Hz spikes (from the horizontal frequency of PAL CRTs).
I think they phased it out in the mid-80s, or at least stopped replacing the parts when they stopped working, so there very probably isn't any working equipment left now—that's my impression, at least.
Since then it's gradually phased over to essentially SELECT address FROM addresses WHERE residential=1 AND tv_licence=0; now, with a side-order of retailers reporting the addresses of people who've bought TVs (so if you bought a TV, but not a TV licence, you're probably going to get a letter, and probably thereafter a visit).
People who sell television equipment have to, by law, ask you for your name and address and pass it on to TVLA. You don't have to provide them with an accurate address. I'm not sure if ICO has looked at this dual or perhaps misleading use of data holding by shops.
I agree that they probably use their database. I wonder how they get a warrant though? Surely a databse entry isn't enough?
It's probably a New Year thing - the TVL people can I imagine more likely win people over to buying a license at New Year when people are thinking more towards being forthright and honest as they set plans for self-improvement??
it depends really, do you want your broadcaster to be answerable to the market?
one of the strongest arguments for the BBC is it's under no obligation to meet any commercial or state interests. Some people may beg to differ on that viewpoint, but the BBC is generally highly regarded in the UK and abroad, especially for its news coverage
If the license fee didn't exist then the BBC would have to make programmes that satisfy the mainstream, which is usually the lowest common denominator.
The craziest part of this is that in the UK you need to pay a fee to pick up publicly broadcasted unencrypted television signals. I wonder what the hell is the basis of this "fee"?
Nothing like transparency. The rest of the article strongly suggests this is to do with the detector vans. This is partially confirmed by a FOI query: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/prosecutions_from_tel...
It sounds like everyone in authority believes that the use of detector vans is regulated by RIPA. I think this is due to section 2:
(2)For the purposes of this Act, but subject to the following provisions of this section, a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if, he—
(a)so modifies or interferes with the system, or its operation,
(b)so monitors transmissions made by means of the system, or
(c)so monitors transmissions made by wireless telegraphy to or from apparatus comprised in the system,
as to make some or all of the contents of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication.
The detector vans are rumored to work by picking up the IF of the TV's heterodyne receiver. I guess this counts as "interception" of a signal, even though it's a signal that was publicly broadcast in the first place.
This could all be cleared up by a clear statement from someone about what surveillance is taking place, but of course everyone loves secrecy and there's no honesty in public debate.