3 ms·

As an American we have our own weird battles with technology, but UK is weird about certain stuff. I wanted to watch a show that is only available in UK, and it

As an American we have our own weird battles with technology, but UK is weird about certain stuff. I wanted to watch a show that is only available in UK, and it’s on BBC. So I downloaded BBC iPlayer with a VPN and signed up, no problem. Verified my age, I get it. Makes sense enough. Kind of dumb because there’s no way they can verify it. Then they wanted me to, on my honor, swear that I had a TV license before I could download the show, even though there was absolutely no way they could verify it. Wut. Actually now that I type it out it feels no less dumb than age verification, just a legalese checkmark

antipotoad 4y ago
I think making you ‘solemnly swear I have a TV licence’ was a way to boil the frog, so to speak, from the days when no licence was required at all to use iPlayer. Jumping straight to a real verification step would have created an uproar. Guess they never went all the way (not yet at least). Still seems odd and pointless.
_Wintermute 4y ago
The way TV licensing works in the UK is strange. If you don't have or need one they'll regularly send threatening letters saying your under investigation, and sometimes a man will knock on your door demanding you let him search your house for a TV. They have no legal powers so you just say no and shut the door, and they'll do it again in a few months.
- philwelch 4y ago
  What happened to the van? I thought there was a van that could detect if you had a TV in your house.
  - opless 4y ago
    Evidence from TV Licencing Vans have never been used to attempt to convict anyone who allegedly failed to pay for a TV license. You could infer from that, that the vans were for show and a shock tactic only. It's not impossible, I'm sure. Back in the CRT days it was reasonably possible to detect a TV program from the intermediate frequency from UHF stations, but more difficult (but not impossible, see TEMPEST) due to direct conversion by SDRs. These side channel attacks can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking Sensitivity of the equipment and picking up the signal from the roadside would have probably impossible in the 60s-80s. But again it's a capability you don't want your cold-war enemies (or allies) knowing about. Also, being able to prove that the signal was the defendants, in a way that would convince a jury might have been difficult. I'm sure some experienced radio hams/RF engineers will weigh in and correct me if I'm way off base here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

antipotoad 4y ago

I think making you ‘solemnly swear I have a TV licence’ was a way to boil the frog, so to speak, from the days when no licence was required at all to use iPlayer. Jumping straight to a real verification step would have created an uproar. Guess they never went all the way (not yet at least). Still seems odd and pointless.

_Wintermute 4y ago

The way TV licensing works in the UK is strange. If you don't have or need one they'll regularly send threatening letters saying your under investigation, and sometimes a man will knock on your door demanding you let him search your house for a TV. They have no legal powers so you just say no and shut the door, and they'll do it again in a few months.

philwelch 4y ago
What happened to the van? I thought there was a van that could detect if you had a TV in your house.
- opless 4y ago
  Evidence from TV Licencing Vans have never been used to attempt to convict anyone who allegedly failed to pay for a TV license. You could infer from that, that the vans were for show and a shock tactic only. It's not impossible, I'm sure. Back in the CRT days it was reasonably possible to detect a TV program from the intermediate frequency from UHF stations, but more difficult (but not impossible, see TEMPEST) due to direct conversion by SDRs. These side channel attacks can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking Sensitivity of the equipment and picking up the signal from the roadside would have probably impossible in the 60s-80s. But again it's a capability you don't want your cold-war enemies (or allies) knowing about. Also, being able to prove that the signal was the defendants, in a way that would convince a jury might have been difficult. I'm sure some experienced radio hams/RF engineers will weigh in and correct me if I'm way off base here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]