News TV Licensing Authority to deploy Wi-Fi sniffing vans

I doubt C4 et al, would mind if the BBC put themselves on a DRM box and lost whatever tiny fraction of fees they get.

 

For anyone thinking of cancelling their licence, Not sure exactly when from, but you will soon need a licence to watch non live BBC media.

 

I think implementing this would cost them too much from an admin point of view. Methinks they'll just rely on people admitting to watching BBC Iplayer when they send out their enforcement officers to addresses without a licence. Time will tell

 

That's right. It changes in just over three weeks time on September 1st.

"The law is changing: From 1 September 2016 you'll need a TV Licence to watch or download our programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer. Visit the TV Licensing website for more details."

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/tvlicence

That explains why the detector vans, assuming they do do something, won't need to differentiate between iPlayer live streams and iPlayer catch-up in their intercepts.

 

I love how we're all talking about a legally sanctioned national wiretapping scheme through the lens of consumer advice.

 

It's hardly wiretapping though. They're just seeing who's using their services without paying.

 

the recent news is that they won't be sniffing Wi-Fi.

 

They're planning on assessing the patterns of encrypted packets without breaking the encryption or monitoring IP addresses. I reckon detecting BBC traffic like this will be difficult in the field, let alone once you factor in multiple networks in one area, like an apartment building.

So as far as legally sanctioned wire tapping by the British government goes, this is incredibly tame and doesn't pose a significant risk to personal security.

So what are they going to do then. Peer in the window?

Edit:
Just having a look around to see a source for what Rich was saying and this article
https://www.theguardian.com/media/s...ect-people-watching-iplayer-without-a-licence
says that the BBC have been authorised to use anti-terror legislation to track down fee dodgers. This is basically why mass surveillance is bad. It gets used for the most trivial of things and doesn't protect anyone, it just pays bills for the government.

 

It's the principle. This is a symptom of waving goodbye to Article 8, and that's the real conversation, not how to deal with employees of private companies in vans monitoring you.

EDIT: And it most certainly is wiretapping. No matter the extent or level of intrusion, if you're monitoring traffic on a network, it's wiretapping.

 

Free TV is not a human right.

Edit: no, it really isn't wiretapping.

 

I never said it was.

I don't own a TV. I don't watch iPlayer. The only dog I have in this is that I get constantly hounded (doubling down on the pun) by TV licensing, contrary to our legal tradition of presumption of innocence...and now I have to deal with them being empowered to legally snoop on my wi-fi using undisclosed equipment and methods? F@#k that!

 

I do understand and sympathise with that point of view but I also sympathise with the BBC's position too. However anyone feels about their service or the license fee arrangement, the terms are clearly defined and I believe they have a right to catch freeloaders.

 

They'll just get a list of addresses with broadband, remove the houses that have tv licenses then hound the rest


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Oh please...don't let the institutional nature of the BBC cloud your recognition that it's just a business like, say, Valve; How would you feel about Dota 2 inception vans driving about? It's a totally ridiculous business model.

The BBC should be either dissolved or reformed.

 

I still dont understand why they dont just issue a username and password to every household with a TV licence to log into iPlayer and have it like netflix accounts.

It would be far simpler than having detection vans driving around(which they dont have anyway) and spending loads on TV inspectors.

 

I'd have no problem with that. The man from the electricity company sometimes comes into the house to read the meter. I'm sure I could consider that an invasion of privacy if I tried hard enough.

 

Difference is, you signed up for that service....a relationship with the BBC is assumed

 

That's a different issue altogether. We were talking about privacy (is Dota 2 Inception, which you used in your example above, not a "sign-up" service?).

 

It's part and parcel with the nature of the company

I don't watch the BBC. Maybe if the BBC didn't exist the void would be filled with another commercial service that I would be interested in, so goes capitalist theory, but it subverts that.

Instead people have to deal with ever-increasing snooping to ensure people aren't using a service, which no one has ever signed a contract for, is a subversion of the presumption of innocence.

Businesses should be opt-in, not opt-out....it's as simple as that.

 

Yes, my point is that earlier when we were discussing privacy, you asked how I'd feel about Dota 2 Inception vans driving around (like TV detector vans).