The BBC is to spy on internet users in their homes by deploying a new generation of Wi-Fi detection vans to identify those illicitly watching its programmes online.
The corporation has been given legal dispensation to use the new technology, which is typically only available to crime-fighting agencies, to enforce the new requirement that people watching BBC programmes via the iPlayer must have a TV licence.
Researchers at University College London disclosed that they had used a laptop running freely available software to identify Skype internet phone calls passing over encrypted Wi-Fi, without needing to crack the network password. They actually don't need to decrypt traffic, because they can already see the packets. They have control over the iPlayer, so they could ensure that it sends packets at a specific size, and match them up.
Source: The Telegraph [paywall]
Also covered by The Register.
n1: The existing TV detector van 'technology' has been in use in the UK since the 1950's, there has never been an explanation as to how they work. I am unaware of any occasions where evidence obtained by one was used to prosecute anyone.
A leaked internal document from the BBC gives a detailed breakdown of the state of licence fee payments and the number of people who evade the charge – but fails to make any mention of the detector vans.
While documenting the number of officers to collect the £145.50 fee increased to 334 this summer, an 18 page memo from the TV Licensing's Executive Management Forum obtained by the Radio Times makes no mention of the vans finding those who don't pay.
Source: The Telegraph (2013)
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @05:16AM
I'm so insightful
It's almost frightful
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday August 08 2016, @05:40AM
Sorry, no "frightful" mod in the list.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Beige on Monday August 08 2016, @05:32AM
Assuming the iPlayer has the ability to collect MAC address information this could perhaps just be an effort to collect (and triangulate the physical location of) wlan device MACs. This would give the TV Licensing company's "officers" some additional leads for knocking on doors. Also sounds like there could be obvious synergies between the TV Licensing vans and Google Street View vans. Just my quick $0.02.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @06:12AM
iPlayer doesn't even have the ability to detect when you're using a UK proxy to pass the geolocation check, and it streams from an international CDN, so once you pass the geolocation check you can turn off the proxy and stream at full speed from an endpoint closest to your real geolocation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Beige on Monday August 08 2016, @07:48AM
Geolocation checks are an entirely different matter. Usually this is just done based on the IP address unless your browsing device has access to geolocation services (e.g. GPS or A-GPS).
Many years ago I lived in the UK without a TV so I have first-hand experience from TV Licensing. In those few years I probably got around 20 threatening letters and 1 visit by a TV Licensing employee. In my case a very friendly Danny de Vito-looking chap showed up behind the door and politely asked if he could see my living room where the TV would normally go. I showed him the living room (which didn't have a TV) and he left on his merry way. I didn't get bugged by them after that. But that was then, and with more and more people watching TV on computers, tablets etc. it's natural that TV Licensing is going to need new conversation leads when they knock on doors.
Sure, perhaps the whole wlan detector van announcement is bogus and it's in any case obviously intended to scare evaders, but I can see how it'd be feasible technically (wardriving kit is cheap and they have staff driving around the UK anyway). Getting the MAC address of the wlan device is feasible on at least some of the iPlayer platforms. So why not tie these two together? It doesn't require very much work technically so it's probably worth it even if it just gives 3% additional leads to their staff.
I can imagine a future TV Licensing conversation going as follows:
A: Hello, I am looking for the owner of wifi network "Alan's wifi"
B: Not mine, I think it's the house over there.
A: Thank you.
(Next house)
A: Hello, I am looking for the owner of wifi network "Alan's wifi"
B: Uh, that's mine, what's up?
A: We have collected evidence of unauthorised use of the BBC iPlayer application by a user connected to this device. Would you like to pay your TV Licensing fee now, or...
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday August 08 2016, @12:53PM
A: Hello, I am looking for the owner of wifi network "Alan's wifi"
B: Not mine, I think it's the house over there.
A: Thank you.
Most domestic WiFi networks are running on their default ESSID as programmed into their router box by their ISP. Of the WAPs I can see here from home, there are three from Sky, two from BT and one from Talk Talk; mine is the only one with a custom name (but doesn't mention "Alan" or any names).
The BBC may be better off asking ISPs who they gave a router with MAC xx:xx:xx:.... and default ESSID XXXXXX to, but that of course assumes that people don't change the ESSID or buy a second-hand router! There used to be a legal requirement to give your name and address when buying a television in the UK, with the details being forwarded to the TV Licencing people. The same might be required of routers to make this work, but I think radio triangulation is the better approach.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday August 08 2016, @05:36AM
I've read they just send them to addresses with NO License on file.
The vans may (probably) do nothing at all. It may have back in the 50s, but probably its all fake these days.
They already know there is no license at that address. They look scary and most people just pay up, and they probably don't bother to pursue those that refuse, unless the home owner let them when they knocked on the door and the telly was in plain site.
Its a silly way to fund a national TV network. Everybody has a tv so why not just do it with a normal tax?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @06:00AM
Back in the 50s, TV sets generated ridiculous amounts of radio interference, there wasn't Wi-Fi everywhere, and an active TV would be easily detectable as a distinctive RF noise generator.
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Monday August 08 2016, @07:49AM
The original detector vans (i.e. pre around 1990) were easily able to detect the frame rate and other oscillators in a TV and thus identify that a television was being used. In the early days of only 2 or 3 channels, they could often identify which of those channels was being watched. I am personally aware of successful convictions as a result of TV detection during the 1970's - 1990s approximately, including one of a member of my extended family. He was fined £60 which was a significant sum at the time of the conviction. Convictions were not uncommon.
Things began to change in the 1990s. Firstly, the electronics themselves improved. Instead of oscillators being based on valves and large coils (essentially using much higher voltages to drive the valves and cathode ray displays) there was a move firstly to semiconductors and later to ICs. These operated at much lower voltages and power levels and thus the emissions became significantly harder to detect.
With the arrival of home computers and gaming devices - which could interface to TV's but which did not require a TV licence to be held - the problem of detecting unlicensed TV use became increasingly difficult. It was no longer sufficient to detect a TV oscillator: a successful conviction required the proof that TV programmes were being received. In those days many families only had the one TV and if a warrant was obtained to enter a home they would find that the television was connected to a computer and/or gaming device and thus they were not be able to say with any degree of certainty what the true usage was. The only successful convictions that I am aware of during the 1990's (other than by chance discovery e.g during eviction, police executing a warrant for a different reason etc) were from homes that were found to have no additional devices and the TV was connected to a TV aerial/antenna. It was no longer cost-effective to pursue illegal usage by simple detection means.
Nowadays, as another commentor has already mentioned, the RF spectrum is far noisier. The switch to semiconductor displays coupled with the fact that such displays are found in a very wide variety of devices (TVs, gaming devices, tablets, computers, cell phones etc) meant that the detection task has become more difficult still. The detector van has the ability to actually display what is on a remote semiconductor display in precisely the same way that TEMPEST [wikipedia.org] is carried out on government or military systems. However, the environment makes such detection very difficult. The detector vehicle has to be parked relatively close to the target device and takes quite a bit of time to find and locate the device sufficiently accurately to ensure a successful conviction. Watching 'catch-up' TV also does not require a licence [tvlicensing.co.uk] in the UK - the requirement for a licence is for watching 'live' TV i.e. programmes being watched or recorded at the time of transmission.
I speculate that the new 'detector' vans actually have a phone link to various ISPs and it is they that can confirm that TV programmes are currently being streamed to a user, or they are able to access local cable connections and inspect the data itself. The detection team will have a current list of licence holders/addresses and have the power to enter your home (i.e. a warrant) for the purposes of inspecting the reception devices. They will also have an updated capability based on the explanation above i.e. they will be able to detect individual displays and view the content in a favourable environment. However, I have no specific information regarding the latest capability.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nuke on Monday August 08 2016, @08:46AM
Watching 'catch-up' TV also does not require a licence in the UK - the requirement for a licence is for watching 'live' TV
I think you missed the bit about watching catch-up will also require the licence, from September. That is why this issue has blown up now.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 08 2016, @01:05PM
The new regulation, as I understand it, only applies to IPlayer i.e. the device most associated with BBC transmissions. The existing regulations cover any TV broadcast, either originating in the UK or overseas, intended for public reception. Amateur TV transmissions are not covered by existing law if I understand correctly. Catch-up TV can employ a multitude of devices and is not limited to BBC transmissions. The only reporting that I have found is vague on this matter. The link in TFA only states that:
So I'm still not sure if the new detection capability is directly linked to the IPlayer (e.g. is the IPlayer phoning home?) or whether they are relying on deep packet inspection to find out what is being viewed.
Nevertheless, the new law will still be contentious. Should UK residents be required to pay the BBC for programmes that are streamed to their homes by an independent provider, for example Sky? Or, if the above statement is true, and it is only IPlayer that is being licensed, what about those who argue that they do not watch the BBC at all? Are they still free to view catch-up from independent providers? Futhermore, the BBC once argued that it was to help pay for the management of a limited RF spectrum which is not something that applies to internet streaming. I do not own a mobile device (nor do I currently live in the UK) but can catch-up TV be viewed on a tablet? If yes, how will they enforce the licensing requirement for such devices?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:53AM
That last bit about no license for catch up is interesting, since they still country block overseas viewers.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 08 2016, @01:16PM
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday August 08 2016, @01:30PM
That comes under the legal category of broadcast rights ("XYZBC has exclusive rights to broadcast this show in the Republic of Such-and-such"), and the political category of funding issues ("UK population pays for programmes that everyone else gets to watch for free? I'm writing to my MP.")
(Score: 4, Informative) by anubi on Monday August 08 2016, @11:21AM
The old-style TV's put out two signals during operation...
1) Horizontal Output Oscillator. Right at 15,750Hz. It drives the horizontal deflection yoke and also drove the transformer that developed the high voltage for the picture tube. This signal is phase-locked to the horizontal rate of the TV station currently tuned to. If it was not synchronized perfectly, the picture would "tear". Every vacuum tube TV I ever worked on had a little control in the front or back labeled "Horizontal Hold", that adjusted this frequency if it did not lock in properly.
You could tell what station the TV was tuned to by which station it had synchronized its oscillator to. There is so much power running around at the set at this frequency it was damn near impossible to shield it to keep it from leaving the set. No real harm if it did leave. So, it was quite easy to pick up this emitted electronic noise miles away with a suitable receiver. I am sure many of you have already experienced receiving a very similar signal .... the SMPS (SwitchMode Power Supply ) in your own computer. Many times, it was damn near impossible to receive an OTA analog TV signal on rabbit ears if you had a computer in the room switched on. The TV had one helluva time trying to figure out what to sync to... the TV signal or your computer's SMPS.
2) You had a local oscillator in your TV tuner that was 45 MHz higher than the signal you were receiving. When the two frequencies were multiplied, the sum and difference frequencies were produced, so that meant 45 MHz was one of them, and the other was way too high. The 45 MHz signal, known as the IF (Intermediate Frequency) was amplified, then the AM part of it went to vary the brightness of the scanning dot on the screen, the sync frequencies were picked out as well, and there was your audio riding on a 4.5 MHz FM carrier at the upper end of the video bandwidth. ( If you want to know more, look up "superheterodyne receiver" ).
So, in the old days, if you wanted to see if someone had a TV, just look for one or both of these signals. #1 was a *lot* stronger, but #2 was sometimes used, detected with spectrum analyzers, to get rough estimations of how many TV's were tuned to which channels by overhead aerial surveillance by plane. Sometimes networks wanted to get rough quickie indications if anyone was watching their new shows, or how many ads could they run before, say 50 percent of their viewers, abandoned the channel.
I honestly do not know if the modern digital TV's leak any identifying info on what is going through them. I used to be a radio-TV serviceman when I was a kid, and knew the old vacuum tube circuits well, but to be dead honest, I have never fixed a modern TV. I threw in the towel when replacing them was cheaper than fixing them. Besides, the new technologies very rarely ever break there.... all the malfunctions seem to be centered around the power supply - and line surges - and cheap switches.
My somewhat educated guess about a TV even being detectable these days is exactly what you say - based on fear and the belief that they *can* still see them.
These modern digital sets seem to emit the same signal no matter what they are doing - basically the processor clock. Anyone done any snooping on a modern system with a spectrum analyzer to see if it radiates anything specific to what it is doing? I have a hard time imagining how it would do so.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Monday August 08 2016, @12:17PM
You probably worked with NTSC sets?
Your frequencies are slightly of. Horizontal frequency for PAL is 15.625KHz
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday August 09 2016, @07:23AM
Yup. NTSC. Long time ago in the age of the Vacuum Tube.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Monday August 08 2016, @07:03AM
Everybody has a tv so why not just do it with a normal tax?
That could have been true in 1990's, but not today. I don't have a TV. Many people don't watch TV - or if they do, they use Netflix or the like. If you want to watch TV, you might be better off paying your own tax, a.k.a. service fees. I do not want to be a part of that circus - and it is easy here, I just don't subscribe to the TV service. There are many better alternatives to sitting like a zombie in front of the screen. I dare say, even writing this post is better :-)
If BBC wants to make sure that only subscribers receive their Internet feed, they can easily enough do that with DRM. Every cable box in the USA is capable of accurately charging you for the premium content. But looks like BBC wants to collect their fees from everyone, no matter if they watch their channel or not. That would be the only logical explanation of this JBT tactic in the era of easy, convenient, personalized, encrypted, metered access to services.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @07:16AM
I don't have a TV.
Of course you don't.
Many people don't watch TV
Too busy snapchatting their tits.
There are many better alternatives to sitting like a zombie in front of the screen.
Tell each other all about how you don't have a TV!
I dare say, even writing this post is better
We're so social!
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Monday August 08 2016, @09:38AM
This is where the Irish Gov truly got us. You only have to have a device capable of receiving TV now to require the license. They really should just tax everyone and be done with it.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:44AM
Gee, I have a device capable of impregnating someone. Should I be charged as if I had used it for that?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:29AM
Ha Ha Ha, silly fellow soylentil, you are going to have a hard time proving your capability of impregnating people!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Monday August 08 2016, @08:42AM
I've read they just send them to addresses with NO License on file.
I believe that.
I moved house 10 years ago and the very next day had a visit from a detector van guy who said he had detected a TV. He was right, there was one but at that point had not even been plugged in - my belongings were still scattered all over the place. Despite all that he was implacable ("I've heard it all these excuses before"). It must have been BS because the TV could not have been making any emissions since its arrival. However, I never got a summons.
I believe that they consult the Land Registry to find people moving house and try to catch them before they have had time to get a licence for the new place.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:40AM
> Everybody has a tv so why not just do it with a normal tax?
I don't. I'm French, where you pay for having a TV whether you watch state programs or not. I'd rather not watch TV at all than pay for those.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Monday August 08 2016, @11:10AM
so why not just do it with a normal tax?
...because, if the BBC had to compete day-to-day with other government departments for their share of the tax pot, that would remove the slim but important distinction between a public broadcasting service and a government broadcasting service.
Yes, there are plenty of ways the government can interfere with the BBC under the current system, but its harder for them to do it quietly or (e.g.) politically entangle income tax or benefits with BBC funding.
Unfortunately, while it worked well in the days of UHF and cathode ray tubes, the license fee concept is losing its wheels in the age of TV-over-IP and mobile devices. Not sure its sustainable - and a levy on internet access would open the floodgates to all of the movie and record companies demanding an internet tax to compensate them for piracy.
The current silliness is the result of political pressure to clamp down on the iPlayer "loophole" which they had previously ignored as unenforceable, and the "solution" may be deliberately ineffective. I think there may be some Kafka-esque issues with broadcasting law that mean they can't just require a log-in to access iPlayer.
The article in The Register gives a rather more critical & informative view than the Torygraph.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday August 08 2016, @05:36PM
if the BBC had to compete day-to-day with other government departments for their share of the tax pot, that would remove the slim but important distinction between a public broadcasting service and a government broadcasting service.
Perhaps, then, they should switch to the voluntary pledge model of NPR in the United States. If the programming is good enough (Downton Abbey, Sherlock, Blackadder) there should be plenty of takers.
It's kinda like what RMS says about programming; you can deserve to be paid, or demand to be paid, but not both. The BBC deserves it; perhaps they should be less demanding.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:36AM
Perhaps, then, they should switch to the voluntary pledge model of NPR in the United States.
Possibly - but then they'd be beholden to big "special interest groups" of sponsors who'd want their say in content, or would lobby the public to withhold donations*. I've listened to NPR and not only are the endless recitations of the sponsors and appeals for money almost as bad as adverts on commercial TV, but the content is all a bit dull and worthy - a bit reminiscent BBC of the 1960s. (NPR talk radio vs. the pathologically eclectic BBC Radio 4 is an interesting contrast). The current BBC is very much a "full spectrum" broadcaster with a specific remit to produce diverse content for a range of audiences.
Personally, I think the "internet license" would be the only way forward for a "BBC as we know it" and I don't see that happening without unpleasant side-effects.
(*A lot of the anti-BBC astroturf is coming from the Murdoch press who I'm sure would jump at the chance of being legally able to call for a BBC boycott - based on some perfectly justified public interest issue of course & nothing remotely to do with wanting people to switch to Sky TV).
If the programming is good enough (Downton Abbey, Sherlock, Blackadder) there should be plenty of takers.
Downton Abbey isn't BBC - its ITV (commercial) as are several other high-quality UK programs (the Morse/Lewis/Endeavour series spring to mind) although whether it would have got made if ITV weren't driven to compete with BBCs reputation, or without the BBCs role in building the talent base, is a harder question.
It may be that we don't need public service broadcasting given the upsurge in "feature film quality" TV we're now seeing from cable and internet channels in the US.
Of course, the other "public service broadcasting" model is the UK Channel 4 [wikipedia.org] - although I think they've done more for films [wikipedia.org] than they have for TV (but they've commissioned more good TV than you'd think from the wikipedia article).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @07:08AM
That doesn't sound bad, but it seems to me that it should be simple to fix in a simple way - such as logging in with a code found on the TV license bill.
Over here, they just require anyone with an internet connection (that includes anyone with a smart phone) to pay for a TV license. At the same time, the broadcasting company that receives our money only broadcasts TV for people over 60 (apart from a couple of channels for children). Everyone else either goes pay-TV (which comes on top of the TV license), or stops watching TV when they get too old to watch the kids stuff. But they still have to pay because they have an internet connection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @07:17AM
Over here, [citation needed]
Where is here AC?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:11AM
When you have a smartphone "here" is anywhere you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:50AM
Over here, they just NOT require anyone to pay for a TV license even if you have a smartphone.
So what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @03:07PM
come on UK where have all the car bombers and jack the rippers gone? kill the masters!
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday August 08 2016, @09:54PM
In the old days, before IEEE 802.11 came along, we used something called 802.3 ("Ethernet" for short). A cable, similar to a garden hose but heavier and less flexible, attached to one's computer. I don't suppose that old technology could handle streaming video. Too bad for the pirates, if these new detector vans aren't equipped to detect the signals from those old cables.
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Monday August 08 2016, @10:11PM
It's a toaster! [youtube.com]