• BBC will ‘use Wi-Fi detection vans to catch TV licence evaders’
    61 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50848411]Nothing beats how funny it is reading supposed left-wingers crying about the BBC trying to prevent what is essentially tax evasion. Despite this they will explode if the 'evil Tories' did anything to it and profess to like public services, the BBC and redistribution. Issues like this separate those who are genuine in their ideals and those who are just self-interested. Thanks for the thread.[/QUOTE] In the most invasive way by expanding the definition of "TV tax" to mean way more than just owning cable TV.
The next generation of TV detector vans. The paranoia runs so thick. I called it. :v:
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50848428]In the most invasive way by expanding the definition of "TV tax" to mean way more than just owning cable TV.[/QUOTE] I think that the BBC should be funded via general taxation, but passing that isn't politically possible right now, so we're stuck with this song and dance for funding.
They'll probably just have like two vans so they can say it's a real thing they do and that you should be scared and pay up already.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50848411]Nothing beats how funny it is reading supposed left-wingers crying about the BBC trying to prevent what is essentially tax evasion. Despite this they will explode if the 'evil Tories' did anything to it and profess to like public services, the BBC and redistribution. Issues like this separate those who are genuine in their ideals and those who are just self-interested. Thanks for the thread.[/QUOTE] People not paying TV license is far less of an impact than big businesses avoiding paying 100s of millions of pounds. Big businesses can also better afford to pay TV license than some of the poorest people. Looking at things black and white is a pretty extremist stance to take some degree of relativism is necessary imo. edit: spooky leftists being all spooky and lefty wo0o0o0o0o
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;50848419]There you go throwing around the leftie insult again, dont you get bored of it?[/QUOTE] Additionally, I know and respect a lot of left wingers. What I can't stand is people holding their beliefs for purely personally self-interested reasons. The same applies to supposedly 'environmentalist' NIMBYs on the right, too.
I don't know what iPlayer is, but as I understand it's owned by the BBC right? Why can't they just tie the license to whatever account you're using?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50848448]People not paying TV license is far less of an impact than big businesses avoiding paying 100s of millions of pounds. Big businesses can also better afford to pay TV license than some of the poorest people. Looking at things black and white is a pretty extremist stance to take some degree of relativism is necessary imo. edit: spooky leftists being all spooky and lefty wo0o0o0o0o[/QUOTE] When the BBC would be primarily funded via general taxation, all of this would be valid. But for now, it unfortunately isn't so we regressive my tax poor people for it.
[QUOTE=DeEz;50848450]I don't know what iPlayer is, but as I understand it's owned by the BBC right? Why can't they just tie the license to whatever account you're using?[/QUOTE] That would be ideal but would probably need a complete overhaul of how TV licencing data is stored since I doubt the system has been updated much since the 90s
[QUOTE=DeEz;50848450]I don't know what iPlayer is, but as I understand it's owned by the BBC right? Why can't they just tie the license to whatever account you're using?[/QUOTE] You don't need to sign in to watch it so I don't think there is any such account thing. I guess that would be a solution to people watching it online - or perhaps enable gps on their device and see if that address has paid a license but such a thing couldn't be used to incriminate I think. It also wouldn't solve the issue of people watching tv without a license. I think the best course of action is login required for iPlayer, ambivalence toward people "stealing" tv and no more money wasted on ridiculous and impossible schemes like that in OP.
A lot of people still use ethernet. Those vans just seem like a waste of money. Too many hurdles in the way of actual data.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50848452]When the BBC would be primarily funded via general taxation, all of this would be valid. But for now, it unfortunately isn't so we regressive my tax poor people for it.[/QUOTE] Well maybe it should be funded by general taxation, good unbiased news and availability of world events to watch is of benefit to the whole country - better informed people, happier population, free "entertainment" for people who might otherwise have to "steal" it.
I'm glad that SVT, the BBC equivalent of Sweden isn't allowed to chase people for having computers and watching their trash anymore. Only if you have a TV. But even that is bullshit, I don't want to watch their biased bullshit and I'm never going to pay for something I don't use. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50848504]Well maybe it should be funded by general taxation, good unbiased news and availability of world events to watch is of benefit to the whole country - better informed people, happier population, free "entertainment" for people who might otherwise have to "steal" it.[/QUOTE] That's the thing though. SVT in Sweden is immensely biased and they aren't even hiding it. Yet people are supposed to pay for them to run their operations. Maybe the BBC is less biased but in the case of Sweden, they are hardly what they claim to be.
[QUOTE] Looking at things black and white is a pretty extremist stance to take some degree of relativism is necessary imo. [/QUOTE] Looking at things black and white is nearly £100 cheaper in TV licence terms.
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;50848508]I'm glad that SVT, the BBC equivalent of Sweden isn't allowed to chase people for having computers and watching their trash anymore. Only if you have a TV. But even that is bullshit, I don't want to watch their biased bullshit and I'm never going to pay for something I don't use. That's the thing though. SVT in Sweden is immensely biased and they aren't even hiding it. Yet people are supposed to pay for them to run their operations. Maybe the BBC is less biased but in the case of Sweden, they are hardly what they claim to be.[/QUOTE] Well I prefer BBC to nearly any independent/private source. At least with BBC (or other state funded media) you have competition to private media, all private media is crap because its ultimately bias toward the super rich who are the only ones with the money to bankroll such a project, all state funded media is dangerous because state funded can turn into state run media which could end up with censorship and supression of political rivals. You need the 2 to balance, ideally with independent/alternative private media to help represent views which aren't thrall to big money peeps.
How is BBC, which is funded by the mostly by this terrible tax, independent/private/unbiased? What if people don't ever watch BBC? Aren't there still ads? Completely state-controlled media is never a good idea IMO.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50848128]Oh, don't forget about the noise created from having more than one user on the network. [editline]8th August 2016[/editline] What use are MAC addresses? But yes, you can retrieve the source/destination MAC address despite encryption over WiFi. [editline]8th August 2016[/editline] All you can do with a mac address is determine the manufacturer. You cannot get the mac address in a browser, thus you have nothing to cross reference to, and even if they shared the same mac with data you somehow got (theoretical situation), you cannot tie that to people still using iplayer.[/QUOTE] They probably can in the apps for Windows/Android/iOS, and maybe through Java or Silverlight if they really wanted to include the web player. Mac address are fairly unique and static, it can be combined with geoip, hardware frequency support, and SSIDs to be great for identifying a device, while only having to pook at the headers of some encrypted wifi packages. In theory gives you more info then trying pattern detection, do things like figuring out where this device is normally used, and pattern detection becomes a problem in really densely populated area's.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50848705]How is BBC, which is funded by the mostly by this terrible tax, independent/private/unbiased? What if people don't ever watch BBC? Aren't there still ads? Completely state-controlled media is never a good idea IMO.[/QUOTE] BBC is state funded but not run by the government. It is less biased than many other media outlets. No ads on BBC to my knowledge. If people stopped watching it there would be bigger things to worry about than "why are people paying for something nobody watches" more along the lines of "what happened to the >250,000,000 people worldwide who watched it?" Honestly BBC is one of the best media outlets in the world.
[QUOTE=Cold;50848710]They probably can in the apps for Windows/Android/iOS, and maybe through Java or Silverlight if they really wanted to include the web player. Mac address are fairly unique and static, it can be combined with geoip, hardware frequency support, and SSIDs to be great for identifying a device, while only having to pook at the headers of some encrypted wifi packages. In theory gives you more info then trying pattern detection, do things like figuring out where this device is normally used, and pattern detection becomes a problem in really densely populated area's.[/QUOTE] Also requires getting the right interface's mac address; and silverlight doesn't let you get the clients mac address (and applets are being ended on the java side), and then they'd be gathering personally identifiable information. And in the end, it still doesn't offer a way to prove viewership. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50848739]BBC is state funded but not run by the government. It is less biased than many other media outlets. No ads on BBC to my knowledge. If people stopped watching it there would be bigger things to worry about than "why are people paying for something nobody watches" more along the lines of "what happened to the >250,000,000 people worldwide who watched it?" Honestly BBC is one of the best media outlets in the world.[/QUOTE] Being state-funded gives them a [b]ton[/b] of power to manipulate it. And there are ads according to other FPers -- and BBC in other countries has ads on it too despite making a ton of money and just re-airing existing programs
Lol this is going to cost as much as they lose from people avoiding paying the TV licence fee, and it will be utterly ineffective anyway. Such a waste of money. Plus going into peoples private WiFi seems invasive. The Beeb should be totally publically funded anyway, rather than a licence fee. Its one of the most respected news organisations in the world, and its important to have a news media alternative without corporate vested interests. Plus its got the best original programming on British TV by far.
[QUOTE] Being state-funded gives them a ton of power to manipulate it. And there are ads according to other FPers -- and BBC in other countries has ads on it too despite making a ton of money and just re-airing existing programs [/QUOTE] The BBC in the UK has no ads whatsoever. It is meant to be impartial but like mostly everything in life, it has a certain bias. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC[/url]
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50848846]The BBC in the UK has no ads whatsoever. It is meant to be impartial but like mostly everything in life, it has a certain bias. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah, id read that someone previously high up in the BBC said that, since fears that the Conservative party would work to privatise the BBC, they've deliberately moved to have a certain level of bias for the Tories. Still got far far far less bias than other news outlets in the uk, though, and at least most of that bias comes from a different place than corporate interest.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50848834]Lol this is going to cost as much as they lose from people avoiding paying the TV licence fee, and it will be utterly ineffective anyway. Such a waste of money. Plus going into peoples private WiFi seems invasive. The Beeb should be totally publically funded anyway, rather than a licence fee. Its one of the most respected news organisations in the world, and its important to have a news media alternative without corporate vested interests. Plus its got the best original programming on British TV by far.[/QUOTE] Theyre doing a good job of losing my respect after this stunt
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50848972]Theyre doing a good job of losing my respect after this stunt[/QUOTE] Assuming flag dog is accurate, they don't really need your respect. If the BBC were to become funded by tax, it would have to be done in such a way that the government can't actually influence it through budget cuts. The BBC is definitely worth having because it's pretty good quality on the journalism and the original content is also great. Not being reliant on viewer figures for funding means they can take a few risks which produces some very good shows.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50848972]Theyre doing a good job of losing my respect after this stunt[/QUOTE] Doesn't sound like you had any respect for them in the first place tbh, what with all the whining about being "state funded". Compared to basically any other news group in the country, the BBC is under extreme scrutiny. When they fuck up a news report they have to report on how the BBC fucked up a news report. If ITV fuck up a news report, or Sky fuck up a news report, they [I]might[/I] feebly apologise. The BBC however have to fucking tear into themselves for being caught pushing a biased story. And I honestly doubt the BBC are actually going to follow through with this plan. They like to start small urban myths like this as evidenced by the "TV Vans" of old that would totally be able to detect you stealing TV we swear guys! TV license enforcers can't even enforce effectively as it is currently, some wishy-washy data gathering that maybe implicates someone was using iPlayer isn't going to hold up in court. Just being able to identify patterns in a packet stream isn't proof of what is actually in an encrypted stream after all, it's just an assumption still.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50849402]Assuming flag dog is accurate, they don't really need your respect. If the BBC were to become funded by tax, it would have to be done in such a way that the government can't actually influence it through budget cuts. The BBC is definitely worth having because it's pretty good quality on the journalism and the original content is also great. Not being reliant on viewer figures for funding means they can take a few risks which produces some very good shows.[/QUOTE] They don't need the respect of UK citizens either. They still need to rely on viewer figures because funding is undoubtedly allocated. [QUOTE=hexpunK;50849663]Doesn't sound like you had any respect for them in the first place tbh, what with all the whining about being "state funded". Compared to basically any other news group in the country, the BBC is under extreme scrutiny. When they fuck up a news report they have to report on how the BBC fucked up a news report. If ITV fuck up a news report, or Sky fuck up a news report, they [I]might[/I] feebly apologise. The BBC however have to fucking tear into themselves for being caught pushing a biased story. And I honestly doubt the BBC are actually going to follow through with this plan. They like to start small urban myths like this as evidenced by the "TV Vans" of old that would totally be able to detect you stealing TV we swear guys! TV license enforcers can't even enforce effectively as it is currently, some wishy-washy data gathering that maybe implicates someone was using iPlayer isn't going to hold up in court. Just being able to identify patterns in a packet stream isn't proof of what is actually in an encrypted stream after all, it's just an assumption still.[/QUOTE] The fact they said they were going to follow through with it is proof enough.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50848428]In the most invasive way by expanding the definition of "TV tax" to mean way more than just owning cable TV.[/QUOTE] That's why the BBC subsidy is not a tax, but a license fee.
Do people in the UK still widely use WEP or something? Even if this worked, isn't there a better way of enforcing it, like giving people who have a license a login?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;50851326]That's why the BBC subsidy is not a tax, but a license fee.[/QUOTE] One who's definition is broadening enough to slowly house all citizens. Sounds like a tax to me. Especially since those that fit under the definition have to pay it compulsorily and those that don't get a hefty prison sentence.
Don't want to pay the license, don't use stuff related to the license, simple as that. In a lot of ways it's similar to highway pass stickers, which also aren't a tax. In term of the jail thing - I'm guessing it's only applied to people who repeatedly breach the license and who also refuse to pay fines.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.