
BBC uses RIPA terrorism laws to catch TV licence fee dodgers in Northern Ireland - k-mcgrady
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/bbc-uses-ripa-terrorism-laws-to-catch-tv-licence-fee-dodgers-in-northern-ireland-30911647.html
======
pjc50
_" The BBC declined to give any details about its use of RIPA"_

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...](https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/prosecutions_from_television_det)

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.

~~~
rtb
"Detector vans" are a myth.

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.)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Well the vans seem real,
[http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detect%20the%20Detector%20vans.h...](http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detect%20the%20Detector%20vans.htm),
but yes their being equipped with detector equipment is probably not real.

[https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/55922/response/164153...](https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/55922/response/164153/attach/html/4/IR2011006%20TVL%20response%20following%20IR%20final.pdf.html)
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???

~~~
joezydeco
Couldn't they just be looking through house windows for a 50Hz flicker?
Wouldn't that be enough to indicate a TV is in oepration?

~~~
raverbashing
Incandescent lamps will also present the flicker

I agree, Detector Vans are mostly a deterrent, but nothing technological about
them

Most "TV detection" that's done is actually someone looking at the window and
seeing a TV, or by other means.

~~~
joezydeco
There's always this, although it probably doesn't work on LCD screens:

[https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ieee02-optical.pdf](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ieee02-optical.pdf)

------
tempodox
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.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
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"

------
ha292
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.

~~~
happyscrappy
This is kind of an odd case though, where they are charging for a broadcasted
signal. Does this happen in other countries?

~~~
vidarh
A lot of European countries have license fees to cover public broadcasting.

------
noonespecial
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.

~~~
cm2187
There is a useful guide for this:
[http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303...](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/11/Terrorist-
chart.jpg)

------
vidarh
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).

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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.

------
jayess
For those of us outside the UK, they are required to pay for a license when
they own a TV and watch live television. It's about $215 a year.

[http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
one/topics/te...](http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8?WT.ac=home_plt_technology)

~~~
hackerboos
It's currently a criminal offense to watch broadcast TV in your home without
one.

There is legislation moving through parliament to make this a civil offense as
magistrate courts are swamped with these cases.

[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-
non-...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-
tv-licence-television-desperate-cases)

~~~
nmeofthestate
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".

~~~
tomp
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.)

~~~
tomtoise
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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.

~~~
tomtoise
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _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!

~~~
corin_
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?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
AFAIK - yes (license required per address [with some exceptions]) and yes
(homeless person acting illegally).

------
rmc
It's not like there's a history of state abuses in Northern Ireland "to combat
terrorism"....

------
k-mcgrady
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.

------
ingler
I haven't seen van Eck phreaking[0] or Tempest[1] mentioned yet. Not that the
BBC would use the tech, but it seems pertinent.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_\(codename\))

~~~
DanBC
It's exactly what the "detector vans" claim to use.

~~~
AlyssaRowan
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).

~~~
DanBC
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?

------
wmt
Strange it's news now, as BBC has been already pretty openly abusing the
spirit of the RIPA legislation to hunt down petty fee dodgers. Here's a word
from the BBC from 2012: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/how-
does-the-bb...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/how-does-the-bbc-
use-ripa)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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??

------
jacquesm
Aren't compulsory fees to support local broadcasters a bit out-dated?
(Regardless of the blatant abuse of the law here.)

~~~
djhworld
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.

~~~
gaius
It's kinda like using the National Lottery to support niche interests like
opera. A trick to get the unwashed masses to subsidise the toffs.

------
blueflow
Im not much surprised. A lot of people told that things like this will happen.

------
squozzer
The BBC has dragged Western Civilization to a new low. Certainly not the
finest hour in the long history of the British Empire, is it?

------
ender89
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"?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The basis is that those signals must be paid for somehow.

