7 ms·
The warrant revealed that a BBC contractor had used an "optical detector" to reveal the possible presence of a TV.[10] The warrant stated that: "the optical det
by dsr_ 7y ago
The warrant revealed that a BBC contractor had used an "optical detector" to reveal the possible presence of a TV.[10] The warrant stated that: "the optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light signals into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed. If a receiver is being used to watch broadcast programmes then a positive reading is returned." [10] The BBC stated that this was strong evidence that a set was "receiving a possible broadcast".
According to The Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office, "where the BBC still suspects that an occupier is watching live television but not paying for a licence, it can send a detection van to check whether this is the case. TVL detection vans can identify viewing on a non‐TV device in the same way that they can detect viewing on a television set. BBC staff were able to demonstrate this to my staff in controlled conditions sufficient for us to be confident that they could detect viewing on a range of non‐TV devices."
---
That device description is entirely consistent with a video camera, perhaps with a telescope in front of it, used for peering through people's windows.
Does this put the BBC at risk of violating anti-peeping-Tom legislation?
- joezydeco 7y agoI would think the stray light from a CRT strobing at 50Hz could be picked up by a photodiode and some amplification. The point of the 'detection' was to just see if a TV was in operation and not to see what was being watched.
- marshray 7y agoEver seen the flickering light of a television behind someone's curtains? Ever seen an app that can identify what song is playing?
- tantalor 7y agoToo many false positives: recorded videos, video games, computers
- amaccuish 7y agoPresumably you could compare it to a reference signal, i.e. what is being broadcast right at that moment? Hence the TV aerials on the roof of the vans?
- joezydeco 7y agoThere's a bit too much confusion as to what era the BBC vans might have been using optical means instead of RF means. In the 1950s there wasn't much else on British television sets other than the BBC, right?
- ben_w 7y agoIt doesn’t matter, the offence is “watch TV without a license” (and previously was, I think, “possess a device capable of watching TV”), not specifically the BBC. (iPlayer is not important to this discussion but complicates things a bit).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gnode 7y agoIt's not a video camera in the conventional sense, necessarily. You could also collect unfocused light emissions, such at those reflecting from walls and ceiling, and correlate their luminance and chroma fluctuations over time with those of live TV. This would not intelligibly perceive non TV light signals, and so be less of a privacy concern. Additionally this would work if the TV's image is not visible.
- jarvist 7y agoNo, it sounds like a telescope focusing onto a single pixel (i.e. just the back of the curtains), and then using the output from this pixel with a lock-in amplifier tied to the broadcast signal. The sensitivity would be enormous due to the lock-in. With a CRT you would be able to do this with <microsecond resolution as the scan lines went across. In today's LCD world, I guess something similar could be done for a whole pixel-average of a whole frame, and then look at the time-series of that to correct for lag in digital television / internet etc..
- henryfjordan 7y agoSo it's using a telescope and a camera to see what's going on in your house (albeit hopefully in a very limited way)... In the US that'd be an illegal search without a warrant.
- umvi 7y agoIn the US no one cares if you buy a TV and set up some rabbit ears or whatever you want with it, especially not the government
- beenBoutIT 7y agoThe only things we (Americans) allow our government to exercise that amount of control over are psychoactive drugs/plants and female reproductive rights. With things like AR15s or TVs we require unfettered access with no paper trail, but if you want Adderall you'll need 3-sheet triplicate DEA forms and it's a federal crime in all 50 states to possess a growing number of naturally occurring plants and fungi.
- pacaro 7y agoNot to mention lawn darts or kinder eggs
- jessaustin 7y ago
- usrusr 7y agoSounds like they are analysing the dynamics of whole-frame integrated brightness change. You don't really need any spacial resolution for that, just enough for separating houses/flats. A single-pixel camera with sufficient aiming, anything beyond that just requires mow processing. I don't know the specific legislation but I'd expect them to be safe.
- iamnotacrook 7y ago"Does this put the BBC at risk of violating anti-peeping-Tom legislation?" Er, you'd have to be more specific. I'm not familiar with that legislation.
- DanBC 7y agoSexual Offences Act 2003, S67 and S68: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67
- ben_w 7y agoIANAL, but most of that law looks to me like spying is only an offence if done with sexual intent; and while the rest of that law might make it an offence if the occupants are nude, that depends if other commenters here are correct to claim the detector is only one pixel (one pixel alone can’t reasonably be considered “a picture” of intimate parts).
- dsr_ 7y agoIn the USA, laws against looking in someone's house on purpose are called "peeping Tom" laws. Generally they specify that it's not a problem if you do not intend to violate anyone's privacy and don't take any steps to improve your sightline; conversely, if you intend to look into someone's house and you take any active measure to do so, you're in violation.
- gjm11 7y agoIt's a funny term since the (legendary) original "peeping Tom" was a man looking out from inside his house at someone naked in the public streets.