6 ms·

Pretty sure this was outted as fake. The idea of a van watching you is enough for many to change their behavior

dtech 6y ago
Yeah, this reminded me of the dutch broadcastings association 1969's april fools joke. In which they said to have developed a device that detects "zwartkijkers" (blackwatchers), for use by mailmen [1]. Funny detail, the reporter asked "Can this devise detect all televisions?" to which the fake interviewee answered, "well if you wrap your set in aluminum foil no, but otherwise yes". The next day aluminum foil was sold out nation-wide. [1] https://www.facebook.com/AndereTijden/videos/1-aprilgrap-journaal-1969/1487107314681791/ https://www.facebook.com/AndereTijden/videos/1-aprilgrap-jou...
superrad 6y ago
Yeah I thought it was just a scare tactic and something the licence 'enforcers' could say (i.e. 'our detector van says you have a tv') to try and catch people out. They surely can't get too much of a return paying people to check up on only potential licence 'evaders' so investing in a fleet of actual vans with drivers and operators would further reduce any return.
mhh__ 6y ago
> Pretty sure this was outted as fake. The technology is completely sound, MI5 invented the rough idea for hunting spies (Operation RAFTER), but whether it was widespread or not? Seems unlikely.
scrooched_moose 6y ago
I believe the current theory is they simply look for light leakage. If they see a "flash - 200ms - flash - 400ms - flash - 350ms - flash" pattern leaking through your curtains precisely at the moment the same pattern occurs in a live broadcast they know you're watching.
- beerandt 6y ago
  You say simply, but I think that's much more difficult than just detecting the presence of em noise conforming to a broadcast standard. Anyone that's put an AM radio next to a CRT TV knows it emits em noise. The CRT itself is, to over simplify, a high voltage capacitor. It's one of the most popular devices used to power hobbyist Tesla coils... I don't know why everyone seems to think that just because TVs were "receive-only" devices, that they wouldn't emit any sort of easily detectable signal. Also, when this enforcement began, broadcast was the only source of TV content, so the presence of a TV was generally proof of watching broadcasts. There wasn't really any need to prove the TV was tuned to any particular content. Now, whether it is a practical, effective method of enforcement that was actually used is another matter.
  - scrooched_moose 6y ago
    Maybe poor phrasing on my part, but that's the prevalent theory I've seen for how they do it today. Various other methods of EM leakage might have worked in the past (unproven as far as I know), but modern televisions are so much better built that visible light leakage is believed to be the only effective detection method.
    - beerandt 6y ago
      Yeah, I wouldn't expect it to work on flatscreens, since they don't have the high voltage components wrt the CRT. That said- it doesn't really have to do with being built better, just completely different.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    You're thinking too much like an engineer Here's my TV detection method: look at their windows and see if there's a light flickering pattern that looks like a TV (if behind curtains) or maybe you can see the TV
    - joosters 6y ago
      'TV Light Simulators' are actually a thing: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=tv+light+simulator&atb=v172-1&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=tv+light+simulator&atb=v172...
joezydeco 6y ago
I've done some work with Buckman Hardy in the UK, they developed and sold a handheld detector to the BBC. They're a legitimate engineering company, I doubt they would admit to being in on the gag if this was fake. http://www.buckman-hardy.co.uk/portfolio/television-detection-equipment/ http://www.buckman-hardy.co.uk/portfolio/television-detectio...
rkachowski 6y ago
I remember as recently as the mid 90s there were intimidating advertisements on UK tv about how tv license vans were going to find you and kick your doors down if you hadn't paid. I had assumed it was complete scare tactics, I never once thought that they had existed in some previous era.
SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
I don’t believe there has been a single conviction based upon evidence gathered by these vans. They’re like lie detector machines - useful only as a tool to get people to confess. Same with the inspectors, they’re private citizens with no legal authority to enter a property without permission. Their purpose is to cultivate fear of prosecution, not to recoup lost revenue.
- tosteris 6y ago
  > I don’t believe there has been a single conviction based upon evidence gathered by these vans According to the article they were not intended for convictions but instead to get a search warrant and then gather evidence for a conviction. So who knows how many convictions were started because of the vans. Though I agree that the fear factor probably did help more than the search warrants.
simonh 6y ago
They were a real thing. When an old style TV amplifies the TV signal and feeds it to the CRT tube, it leaks a lot of the boosted signal. I think the rumour that the vans were a fake was probably because they only ever had a few and it was mostly a propaganda show, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Intelligence agencies used receivers to snoop in on CRT computer monitor signals and could re-generate the display output, I remember watching a TV program where some electrical engineers built a home-grown version and demonstrated how it worked. It was only effective up to about a dozen metres IIRC with their setup, but theoretically could work at longer range with better hardware. I remember chatting with friends about it because we were playing an espionage RPG at the time so of course we wanted our characters to have access to the tech.
- avh02 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking when i read that article years ago i went in to a huge rabbit hole about side-channel attacks. A lot of the information from that reading spree has stuck with me
  - simonh 6y ago
    That's it, the name rings a bell. I was in 6th form in the UK (high school) in 1985 so the timing matches.
- nitwit005 6y ago
  I'm sure it's entirely feasible to build such a thing, but try to find a case prosecuted because of a detector van, or results used as evidence. It doesn't appear to have ever happened. And where is the detector van union? Memorial service for the driver who crashed? Job postings?
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  >> When an old style TV amplifies the TV signal and feeds it to the CRT tube, it leaks a lot of the boosted signal. I think the rumour that the vans were a fake was probably because they only ever had a few and it was mostly a propaganda show, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Just because the technology exists, doesn't mean the BBC actually used it. For one thing, it would have been far cheaper to put out the word that the vans are on the streets and patrolling, than to actually buy them, equip them and staff them with trained personel that could operate the devices. Alternatively, perhaps a few of those vans really did exist and the rest was smoke and mirrors- rumours, fake vans without any active technology, etc. Note that the reason I'm finding this likely is that the TV Licensing people are known for using psychological warfare tactics. For instance, I don't watch TV [1] and yet I periodically receive threatening letters from the TV licensing authority telling me that if I'm found to watch TV without a license I'll be fined, etc. Clearly, they send those letters to all addresses in the UK that don't have a license, under the assumption that most addresses without a license actually need one and that by sending out threatening letters en masse they will scare some of those shirkers into compliance- regardless of how many people who don't actually watch TV they end up threatening in the process. I've also seen some really startling public campaigns with posters showing bullseyes on houses, creepy slogans about being watched and so on. Their tactics are a veritable nuisance and their mass mailing campaigns may or may not have the effect they want, but they sure have the effect of bothering random, uninvolved people with threatening government spam. _____________ [1] Er, well. I do occasionally watch TV shows, or rather clips thereof- on youtube. But that's not covered by the licensing. You need a license if you're watching TV programmes as they are being broadcast. So for example, I had a TV set for a few years that I used exclusively with a PS2 and I didn't need a license for it- but I'm pretty sure that if I had ever been visited by one of the TV licensing agents, I'd have been forced to pay anyway. How exactly do you prove that you have a TV set but don't watch TV? Most modern houses have aerial plugs - mine sure does. The only thing that really stopped me from connecting the TV set I had to the aerial was that I basically dislike TV. How do you prove that to an agent hell-bent on collecting?
shatnersbassoon 6y ago
Many but not all :) - Some buddies of mine used to live in a student flat in Bristol that overlooked the TV Licensing Authority offices. My friends watched them go about their business over the top of their unlicensed TV for 2.5 years.
slumdev 6y ago
No reason to believe it couldn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)#Public_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)#Public_rese...

Yeah, this reminded me of the dutch broadcastings association 1969's april fools joke. In which they said to have developed a device that detects "zwartkijkers" (blackwatchers), for use by mailmen [1]. Funny detail, the reporter asked "Can this devise detect all televisions?" to which the fake interviewee answered, "well if you wrap your set in aluminum foil no, but otherwise yes". The next day aluminum foil was sold out nation-wide. [1] https://www.facebook.com/AndereTijden/videos/1-aprilgrap-journaal-1969/1487107314681791/ https://www.facebook.com/AndereTijden/videos/1-aprilgrap-jou...

superrad 6y ago

Yeah I thought it was just a scare tactic and something the licence 'enforcers' could say (i.e. 'our detector van says you have a tv') to try and catch people out. They surely can't get too much of a return paying people to check up on only potential licence 'evaders' so investing in a fleet of actual vans with drivers and operators would further reduce any return.

mhh__ 6y ago

> Pretty sure this was outted as fake. The technology is completely sound, MI5 invented the rough idea for hunting spies (Operation RAFTER), but whether it was widespread or not? Seems unlikely.

scrooched_moose 6y ago

I believe the current theory is they simply look for light leakage. If they see a "flash - 200ms - flash - 400ms - flash - 350ms - flash" pattern leaking through your curtains precisely at the moment the same pattern occurs in a live broadcast they know you're watching.

beerandt 6y ago
You say simply, but I think that's much more difficult than just detecting the presence of em noise conforming to a broadcast standard. Anyone that's put an AM radio next to a CRT TV knows it emits em noise. The CRT itself is, to over simplify, a high voltage capacitor. It's one of the most popular devices used to power hobbyist Tesla coils... I don't know why everyone seems to think that just because TVs were "receive-only" devices, that they wouldn't emit any sort of easily detectable signal. Also, when this enforcement began, broadcast was the only source of TV content, so the presence of a TV was generally proof of watching broadcasts. There wasn't really any need to prove the TV was tuned to any particular content. Now, whether it is a practical, effective method of enforcement that was actually used is another matter.
- scrooched_moose 6y ago
  Maybe poor phrasing on my part, but that's the prevalent theory I've seen for how they do it today. Various other methods of EM leakage might have worked in the past (unproven as far as I know), but modern televisions are so much better built that visible light leakage is believed to be the only effective detection method.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    Yeah, I wouldn't expect it to work on flatscreens, since they don't have the high voltage components wrt the CRT. That said- it doesn't really have to do with being built better, just completely different.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  You're thinking too much like an engineer Here's my TV detection method: look at their windows and see if there's a light flickering pattern that looks like a TV (if behind curtains) or maybe you can see the TV
  - joosters 6y ago
    'TV Light Simulators' are actually a thing: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=tv+light+simulator&atb=v172-1&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=tv+light+simulator&atb=v172...

joezydeco 6y ago

I've done some work with Buckman Hardy in the UK, they developed and sold a handheld detector to the BBC. They're a legitimate engineering company, I doubt they would admit to being in on the gag if this was fake. http://www.buckman-hardy.co.uk/portfolio/television-detection-equipment/ http://www.buckman-hardy.co.uk/portfolio/television-detectio...

rkachowski 6y ago

I remember as recently as the mid 90s there were intimidating advertisements on UK tv about how tv license vans were going to find you and kick your doors down if you hadn't paid. I had assumed it was complete scare tactics, I never once thought that they had existed in some previous era.

SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago

I don’t believe there has been a single conviction based upon evidence gathered by these vans. They’re like lie detector machines - useful only as a tool to get people to confess. Same with the inspectors, they’re private citizens with no legal authority to enter a property without permission. Their purpose is to cultivate fear of prosecution, not to recoup lost revenue.

tosteris 6y ago
> I don’t believe there has been a single conviction based upon evidence gathered by these vans According to the article they were not intended for convictions but instead to get a search warrant and then gather evidence for a conviction. So who knows how many convictions were started because of the vans. Though I agree that the fear factor probably did help more than the search warrants.

simonh 6y ago

They were a real thing. When an old style TV amplifies the TV signal and feeds it to the CRT tube, it leaks a lot of the boosted signal. I think the rumour that the vans were a fake was probably because they only ever had a few and it was mostly a propaganda show, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Intelligence agencies used receivers to snoop in on CRT computer monitor signals and could re-generate the display output, I remember watching a TV program where some electrical engineers built a home-grown version and demonstrated how it worked. It was only effective up to about a dozen metres IIRC with their setup, but theoretically could work at longer range with better hardware. I remember chatting with friends about it because we were playing an espionage RPG at the time so of course we wanted our characters to have access to the tech.

avh02 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking when i read that article years ago i went in to a huge rabbit hole about side-channel attacks. A lot of the information from that reading spree has stuck with me
- simonh 6y ago
  That's it, the name rings a bell. I was in 6th form in the UK (high school) in 1985 so the timing matches.
nitwit005 6y ago
I'm sure it's entirely feasible to build such a thing, but try to find a case prosecuted because of a detector van, or results used as evidence. It doesn't appear to have ever happened. And where is the detector van union? Memorial service for the driver who crashed? Job postings?
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> When an old style TV amplifies the TV signal and feeds it to the CRT tube, it leaks a lot of the boosted signal. I think the rumour that the vans were a fake was probably because they only ever had a few and it was mostly a propaganda show, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Just because the technology exists, doesn't mean the BBC actually used it. For one thing, it would have been far cheaper to put out the word that the vans are on the streets and patrolling, than to actually buy them, equip them and staff them with trained personel that could operate the devices. Alternatively, perhaps a few of those vans really did exist and the rest was smoke and mirrors- rumours, fake vans without any active technology, etc. Note that the reason I'm finding this likely is that the TV Licensing people are known for using psychological warfare tactics. For instance, I don't watch TV [1] and yet I periodically receive threatening letters from the TV licensing authority telling me that if I'm found to watch TV without a license I'll be fined, etc. Clearly, they send those letters to all addresses in the UK that don't have a license, under the assumption that most addresses without a license actually need one and that by sending out threatening letters en masse they will scare some of those shirkers into compliance- regardless of how many people who don't actually watch TV they end up threatening in the process. I've also seen some really startling public campaigns with posters showing bullseyes on houses, creepy slogans about being watched and so on. Their tactics are a veritable nuisance and their mass mailing campaigns may or may not have the effect they want, but they sure have the effect of bothering random, uninvolved people with threatening government spam. _____________ [1] Er, well. I do occasionally watch TV shows, or rather clips thereof- on youtube. But that's not covered by the licensing. You need a license if you're watching TV programmes as they are being broadcast. So for example, I had a TV set for a few years that I used exclusively with a PS2 and I didn't need a license for it- but I'm pretty sure that if I had ever been visited by one of the TV licensing agents, I'd have been forced to pay anyway. How exactly do you prove that you have a TV set but don't watch TV? Most modern houses have aerial plugs - mine sure does. The only thing that really stopped me from connecting the TV set I had to the aerial was that I basically dislike TV. How do you prove that to an agent hell-bent on collecting?

shatnersbassoon 6y ago

Many but not all :) - Some buddies of mine used to live in a student flat in Bristol that overlooked the TV Licensing Authority offices. My friends watched them go about their business over the top of their unlicensed TV for 2.5 years.

slumdev 6y ago

No reason to believe it couldn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)#Public_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)#Public_rese...