10 ms·

The UK has some strange leftover laws about radio communication. Recently there was a post here about their system of TV detector vans to collect license fees f

The UK has some strange leftover laws about radio communication. Recently there was a post here about their system of TV detector vans to collect license fees for public television (something most sensible countries have put into their normal taxes a long time ago). And the UK for example is also missing from Live ATC because listening to (open, unencrypted) ATC communications is illegal there.

traceroute66 4y ago
> UK for example is also missing from Live ATC because listening to (open, unencrypted) ATC communications is illegal there. Actually no. You CAN listen to it. Anyone is free to buy a scanner. You CANNOT record it or redistribute it.
- pc86 4y ago
  > Anyone is free to buy a scanner. "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally permissible."
  - traceroute66 4y ago
    > "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally permissible." In the UK if a radio device is 'inherently incapable of transmission', you do not need a licence to install or use it. A scanner is very much that. It is legal to use a scanner in the UK as long as it is clear from the context that the message being listened to was intended for general reception. There are many circumstances in aviation where this could be the case.
    - cmsj 4y ago
      ATC is not meant for general reception. radio stations, weather/navigation broadcasts, amateur radio bands, etc. are intended for general reception. ATC is intended for airport staff and aircraft, so it is technically illegal to listen to it in the UK. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/radio-interception https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/r...
      - wpietri 4y ago
        I love this "meant for". It seems very in line with British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you didn't get them.
        traceroute66 4y ago
        > It seems very in line with British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you didn't get them. That's basically how the actual law on this matter is worded, i.e. "don't listen, but if you did listen, don't tell anyone". Section 48, Wireless Telegraphy Act[1], notice the clever little "or" at the end of (1)(a). So 48(1) is telling you: "don't use it with intent"(1)(a), but if you do don't be that person who "discloses information"(1)(b). [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48
      - traceroute66 4y ago
        > ATC is not meant for general reception Not quite so black and white. One easy example I can think of in the UK is uncontrolled/semi-controlled airspace (class E/G) and uncontrolled airfields. Parties transmitting on those frequencies are basically sending broadcast messages for the benefit of anyone listening in order to inform those unknown parties of their location and intentions. See also, for example, this reply to an FOI request[1], I quote: Whether or not an aeronautical transmission was intended for general reception would depend on all of the circumstances of the transmission. We cannot therefore say, generally, whether or not listening to these transmissions would be an offence. [1] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_listening_and_the_law https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_listening_an...
      - tim333 4y ago
        We used to have a plane with a radio in designed to listen to ATC for the usual reasons. I see no great difference to listening to it for flying the plane of listening to it for no particular reason when sitting around, legally speaking. Transmitting to ATC is of course quite a different thing.
    - bitwize 4y ago
      > In the UK if a radio device is 'inherently incapable of transmission', you do not need a licence to install or use it. Oi, you got a loicense for that television receiver, mate?
      - midasuni 4y ago
        Don’t need a license to have a TV, or a license to use it to receive many signals. You need a license to receive a television programme service, which I believe is defined as a service being transmitted by an ofcom registered television station.
        867-5309 4y ago
        doesn't exactly roll off the tongue though does it
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  I listen to a a few ATC YouTube channels like VASAviation[1], Mentour Pilot[2], 74 Gear[3]. Are you say that if VAS, etc. put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they could be punished for that? Are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an arrestable offense? My assumption is it falls under some vague "safety and security" measure in response to 9/11, but that would raise questions about just having it encrypted, instead. Honestly, the concept of this being illegal is shocking to me. I had assumed recording/playback of ATC comms was essentially a universal standard practice (minus Military, police ops, etc.) to help with education and training. It seems like a terrible shame that the UK would have such a strange rule barring it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation [2] https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot [3] https://www.youtube.com/@74gear https://www.youtube.com/@74gear
  - traceroute66 4y ago
    > put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they could be punished for that? Yes > are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an arrestable offense? In the UK criminal offences are generally dealt with reasonably softly, i.e. within the context of the criminal and the severity of the crime. With something like this, which would be a criminal offence similar to re-distributing paid TV services you would normally just go through various levels of fine depending on severity/scale. So a website explicitly setup to distribute recordings could expect quite a heavy fine because (a) they were knowingly doing it, and (b) they were distributing to a large global audience. Chances of being arrested on this sort of offence in the UK is highly unlikely. Maybe if you were a repeat offender you might leave them with little choice, but that's probably the only scenario.
    - registeredcorn 4y ago
      Interesting! Thank you for the response. :)
- larrywright 4y ago
  As I understand it, pager messages are the same way. At least in the US, they’re transmitted unencrypted, and anyone with a $25 SDR dongle and some free software can receive them. But it’s illegal to, say, put them up on a website.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    This is *exactly* what someone in Yorkshire found out a few years ago when he wrote a bot to post Fire and Rescue pager messages to Twitter. It's worth pointing out that it's almost impossible to get Ofcom to prosecute you for anything to do with receiving and recording radio traffic, or even transmitting illegally, as long as you're not making a nuisance of yourself. This is generally how laws work in the UK. You can do it right up to the point at which it pisses people off enough that the legal system has to act.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      Funny.. In the Netherlands there's a website that's exactly this. https://monitor.p2000alarm.nl https://monitor.p2000alarm.nl Not only is it legal but many police forces around the country use this site to keep an eye on the traffic. At least they did more than a decade ago.
      - jeroenhd 4y ago
        Note that there is also an encrypted version of this system that's not publicly accessible. I'm not sure about the quality of the encryption used, but I do know that police traffic and ambulance traffic often goes via encrypted channels. I'm also not sure if this is a system that's legally protected or that the government simply hasn't bothered trying to take these sites down.
        wkat4242 4y ago
        That's called C2000 yes but it's mainly for voice. It can handle text messages too. It's based on Tetra. And it's two-way. Indeed very well encrypted. P2000 is one way and based on FLEX, a paging protocol. It's indeed only used for fire and ambulance. The police data is too sensitive so they use C2000. Though you will see police traffic related to accidents etc. But no P2000 isn't protected and the government even used that website themselves :) Not officially though, I guess. I think this is also because most fire departments use a lot of volunteers which makes their activities a lot more public.
secondcoming 4y ago
Those detector vans were a hoax. I don’t have a TV licence because I don’t fit any of the criteria for requiring one. Screw taking it out of my tax instead.
- ntauthority 4y ago
  Germany solved that issue by making owning any device capable of receiving internet broadcasts part of the eligibility criteria. By that point they could just as well make it part of general tax budgets...
  - culturestate 4y ago
    Germany just sends a bill to every registered resident, no matter what. The Rundfunkbeitrag is applied per household, not based on devices, and it's up to each person to either pay the tax or justify to the Beitragsservice that they don't need to.
    - ErikCorry 4y ago
      A super regressive tax for young people who live alone.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - account42 4y ago
        And of course young people are also less likely to watch TV in the first place. It's basically subsidized entertainment for the elderly, which would be fine if the funds were sourced equitably. I also don't buy that this weird totally-not-a-tax setup makes the news any more independent from the government - after all, it's still the government deciding to uphold or even increase the fees as well as allowing and supporting the enforcement. Yeah, it's a pretty shitty system and I wish we would get rid of it. Don't have high hopes of that happening anytime soon though.
      - 4y ago
InCityDreams 4y ago
>(something most sensible countries have put into their normal taxes a long time ago). Yeah, italy - putting the license fee in the electricity bills.
retube 4y ago
TV detector vans are a myth
- jedberg 4y ago
  From what I've read, they do exist, but have never been successful in catching anyone.
  - TecoAndJix 4y ago
    I found this article from 2021 [1] “ Modern efforts to detect licence evasion are shrouded in mystery. Modern flatscreen displays receiving digital television signals do not emit as much radio frequency interference as older designs, and any such signals detected are less easily correlated with broadcast television. An LCD television in the home can just as easily be displaying output from a video game console or an online streaming service, with both being usage cases that do not require the owner to pay a licence fee. Based on an alleged BBC submission for a search warrant in recent years, there may be optical methods used in which reflected light from a television in a viewer’s home is compared to a live broadcast signal. The BBC declined to answer the Freedom of Information request with any details of their methods, other than to say they have employed vehicles and handheld devices in enforcement efforts.” https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-prowled-the-streets-of-england/ https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-prowle...
    - laurencerowe 4y ago
      There's no mystery. They have a list of every address without a TV license so simply go and ring the doorbell and ask you. You don't have to let them in.
      - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
        An ex-gf of mine was caught red-handed with the TV on and brazenly (and impressively) bluffed her way out of a conviction. She said it wasn't her flat and the real owner was out. The inspectors can't do much if you refuse to identify or incriminate yourself.
baybal2 4y ago
[dead]
valdiorn 4y ago
Fyi TV detector vans are essentially fearmongering by the government. A freedom of information request recently revealed not a single prosecution has been generated from the use of those vans since the project's alleged start in the early 50s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
- phire 4y ago
  The freedom of information request revealed no evidence from tv detector vans was directly used in prosecution. But apparently tv detector van evidence was used for search warrants that then lead to further evidence that was used in prosecution. Yes. The primary purpose of the tv detector vans was fearmongering. But they did exist (in small numbers), and they were at least semi-functional.

traceroute66 4y ago

> UK for example is also missing from Live ATC because listening to (open, unencrypted) ATC communications is illegal there. Actually no. You CAN listen to it. Anyone is free to buy a scanner. You CANNOT record it or redistribute it.

pc86 4y ago
> Anyone is free to buy a scanner. "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally permissible."
- traceroute66 4y ago
  > "Technically possible" doesn't always mean "legally permissible." In the UK if a radio device is 'inherently incapable of transmission', you do not need a licence to install or use it. A scanner is very much that. It is legal to use a scanner in the UK as long as it is clear from the context that the message being listened to was intended for general reception. There are many circumstances in aviation where this could be the case.
  - cmsj 4y ago
    ATC is not meant for general reception. radio stations, weather/navigation broadcasts, amateur radio bands, etc. are intended for general reception. ATC is intended for airport staff and aircraft, so it is technically illegal to listen to it in the UK. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/radio-interception https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/r...
    - wpietri 4y ago
      I love this "meant for". It seems very in line with British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you didn't get them.
      - traceroute66 4y ago
        > It seems very in line with British politeness to treat certain broadcasts you receive as things that just weren't meant for you, so let's all pretend that you didn't get them. That's basically how the actual law on this matter is worded, i.e. "don't listen, but if you did listen, don't tell anyone". Section 48, Wireless Telegraphy Act[1], notice the clever little "or" at the end of (1)(a). So 48(1) is telling you: "don't use it with intent"(1)(a), but if you do don't be that person who "discloses information"(1)(b). [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48
    - traceroute66 4y ago
      > ATC is not meant for general reception Not quite so black and white. One easy example I can think of in the UK is uncontrolled/semi-controlled airspace (class E/G) and uncontrolled airfields. Parties transmitting on those frequencies are basically sending broadcast messages for the benefit of anyone listening in order to inform those unknown parties of their location and intentions. See also, for example, this reply to an FOI request[1], I quote: Whether or not an aeronautical transmission was intended for general reception would depend on all of the circumstances of the transmission. We cannot therefore say, generally, whether or not listening to these transmissions would be an offence. [1] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_listening_and_the_law https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/air_band_listening_an...
    - tim333 4y ago
      We used to have a plane with a radio in designed to listen to ATC for the usual reasons. I see no great difference to listening to it for flying the plane of listening to it for no particular reason when sitting around, legally speaking. Transmitting to ATC is of course quite a different thing.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    > In the UK if a radio device is 'inherently incapable of transmission', you do not need a licence to install or use it. Oi, you got a loicense for that television receiver, mate?
    - midasuni 4y ago
      Don’t need a license to have a TV, or a license to use it to receive many signals. You need a license to receive a television programme service, which I believe is defined as a service being transmitted by an ofcom registered television station.
      - 867-5309 4y ago
        doesn't exactly roll off the tongue though does it
registeredcorn 4y ago
I listen to a a few ATC YouTube channels like VASAviation[1], Mentour Pilot[2], 74 Gear[3]. Are you say that if VAS, etc. put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they could be punished for that? Are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an arrestable offense? My assumption is it falls under some vague "safety and security" measure in response to 9/11, but that would raise questions about just having it encrypted, instead. Honestly, the concept of this being illegal is shocking to me. I had assumed recording/playback of ATC comms was essentially a universal standard practice (minus Military, police ops, etc.) to help with education and training. It seems like a terrible shame that the UK would have such a strange rule barring it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation https://www.youtube.com/@VASAviation [2] https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot [3] https://www.youtube.com/@74gear https://www.youtube.com/@74gear
- traceroute66 4y ago
  > put up a video of UK ATC traffic, while in the UK, they could be punished for that? Yes > are we talking some 5 pound fine, or is that something closer to an arrestable offense? In the UK criminal offences are generally dealt with reasonably softly, i.e. within the context of the criminal and the severity of the crime. With something like this, which would be a criminal offence similar to re-distributing paid TV services you would normally just go through various levels of fine depending on severity/scale. So a website explicitly setup to distribute recordings could expect quite a heavy fine because (a) they were knowingly doing it, and (b) they were distributing to a large global audience. Chances of being arrested on this sort of offence in the UK is highly unlikely. Maybe if you were a repeat offender you might leave them with little choice, but that's probably the only scenario.
  - registeredcorn 4y ago
    Interesting! Thank you for the response. :)
larrywright 4y ago
As I understand it, pager messages are the same way. At least in the US, they’re transmitted unencrypted, and anyone with a $25 SDR dongle and some free software can receive them. But it’s illegal to, say, put them up on a website.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  This is *exactly* what someone in Yorkshire found out a few years ago when he wrote a bot to post Fire and Rescue pager messages to Twitter. It's worth pointing out that it's almost impossible to get Ofcom to prosecute you for anything to do with receiving and recording radio traffic, or even transmitting illegally, as long as you're not making a nuisance of yourself. This is generally how laws work in the UK. You can do it right up to the point at which it pisses people off enough that the legal system has to act.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Funny.. In the Netherlands there's a website that's exactly this. https://monitor.p2000alarm.nl https://monitor.p2000alarm.nl Not only is it legal but many police forces around the country use this site to keep an eye on the traffic. At least they did more than a decade ago.
    - jeroenhd 4y ago
      Note that there is also an encrypted version of this system that's not publicly accessible. I'm not sure about the quality of the encryption used, but I do know that police traffic and ambulance traffic often goes via encrypted channels. I'm also not sure if this is a system that's legally protected or that the government simply hasn't bothered trying to take these sites down.
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        That's called C2000 yes but it's mainly for voice. It can handle text messages too. It's based on Tetra. And it's two-way. Indeed very well encrypted. P2000 is one way and based on FLEX, a paging protocol. It's indeed only used for fire and ambulance. The police data is too sensitive so they use C2000. Though you will see police traffic related to accidents etc. But no P2000 isn't protected and the government even used that website themselves :) Not officially though, I guess. I think this is also because most fire departments use a lot of volunteers which makes their activities a lot more public.

secondcoming 4y ago

Those detector vans were a hoax. I don’t have a TV licence because I don’t fit any of the criteria for requiring one. Screw taking it out of my tax instead.

ntauthority 4y ago
Germany solved that issue by making owning any device capable of receiving internet broadcasts part of the eligibility criteria. By that point they could just as well make it part of general tax budgets...
- culturestate 4y ago
  Germany just sends a bill to every registered resident, no matter what. The Rundfunkbeitrag is applied per household, not based on devices, and it's up to each person to either pay the tax or justify to the Beitragsservice that they don't need to.
  - ErikCorry 4y ago
    A super regressive tax for young people who live alone.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - account42 4y ago
      And of course young people are also less likely to watch TV in the first place. It's basically subsidized entertainment for the elderly, which would be fine if the funds were sourced equitably. I also don't buy that this weird totally-not-a-tax setup makes the news any more independent from the government - after all, it's still the government deciding to uphold or even increase the fees as well as allowing and supporting the enforcement. Yeah, it's a pretty shitty system and I wish we would get rid of it. Don't have high hopes of that happening anytime soon though.
    - 4y ago

InCityDreams 4y ago

>(something most sensible countries have put into their normal taxes a long time ago). Yeah, italy - putting the license fee in the electricity bills.

retube 4y ago

TV detector vans are a myth

jedberg 4y ago
From what I've read, they do exist, but have never been successful in catching anyone.
- TecoAndJix 4y ago
  I found this article from 2021 [1] “ Modern efforts to detect licence evasion are shrouded in mystery. Modern flatscreen displays receiving digital television signals do not emit as much radio frequency interference as older designs, and any such signals detected are less easily correlated with broadcast television. An LCD television in the home can just as easily be displaying output from a video game console or an online streaming service, with both being usage cases that do not require the owner to pay a licence fee. Based on an alleged BBC submission for a search warrant in recent years, there may be optical methods used in which reflected light from a television in a viewer’s home is compared to a live broadcast signal. The BBC declined to answer the Freedom of Information request with any details of their methods, other than to say they have employed vehicles and handheld devices in enforcement efforts.” https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-prowled-the-streets-of-england/ https://hackaday.com/2021/01/18/tv-detector-vans-once-prowle...
  - laurencerowe 4y ago
    There's no mystery. They have a list of every address without a TV license so simply go and ring the doorbell and ask you. You don't have to let them in.
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      An ex-gf of mine was caught red-handed with the TV on and brazenly (and impressively) bluffed her way out of a conviction. She said it wasn't her flat and the real owner was out. The inspectors can't do much if you refuse to identify or incriminate yourself.

baybal2 4y ago

[dead]

valdiorn 4y ago

Fyi TV detector vans are essentially fearmongering by the government. A freedom of information request recently revealed not a single prosecution has been generated from the use of those vans since the project's alleged start in the early 50s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van

phire 4y ago
The freedom of information request revealed no evidence from tv detector vans was directly used in prosecution. But apparently tv detector van evidence was used for search warrants that then lead to further evidence that was used in prosecution. Yes. The primary purpose of the tv detector vans was fearmongering. But they did exist (in small numbers), and they were at least semi-functional.