Slashdot Mirror


BBC To Deploy Detection Vans To Snoop On Internet Users (telegraph.co.uk)

product_bucket writes: The BBC has been given permission to use a new technology to detect users of the iPlayer who do not hold a TV license. Researchers at University College London have apparently developed a method to identify specially crafted "packets" of data over an encrypted Wi-Fi link without needing to break the underlying encryption itself. TV Licensing (the fee-collecting arm of the BBC) has said the practice is under regular scrutiny by independent regulators, but declined to elaborate on how the technique works. Dr Miguel Rio, a computer network expert who helped to oversee the doctoral thesis, said: "They actually don't need to decrypt traffic, because they can already see the packets. They have control over the iPlayer, so they can ensure that it sends packets at a specific size, and match them up. They could also use directional antennae to ensure they are viewing the Wi-Fi operating within your property." The BBC has been given such authority through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

22 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck. by mr_jrt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think it'll be quite obvious when I notice the cat5 snaking up from a parked van to my wired network. :)

    --
    Boo.
    1. Re:Good luck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Resulting a deadmau5.

    2. Re:Good luck. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course, I remember the old days. BBC and a bailiff come with a knock on the door of our squat.

      "We are here to deliver notice of operating an unlicensed television, and register collection of a license fee." Mind you, the license fee in those day were less than 145 quid, but despite all, we were skint and didn't have it.

      Well, I insisted we were exempt, 'cos the telly was free, left behind in the flat before we came - and for good reason! The only button that worked was for ITV.

      I tried to demonstrate this to the assembled officials by summarizing the most recent "Lady Loves Milk Tray" and just how funny it would be, if the secret agent had been revealed in closing shot to be Leonard Rossiter.

      We were delivered a bailiff's notice to pay the fee or surrender the telly. I'm pretty sure that that was the beginning of the MDMA period, come to think.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. Privacy? Fuck you. by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the BBC just proved that they need to be completely destroyed they just handed their anti-BBC crowd the ammunition to do it. Bet it won't take more then a few weeks before people start making honeypots to bait them, and wouldn't that be very fun to see in court.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Privacy? Fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tory policy since Thatcher has been to squeeze and mis-manage public services deliberately until the public tips in favour of privatisation. If you don't think this fucking ridiculous claim is an extension of that, you're either young or have newly immigrated.

    2. Re: Privacy? Fuck you. by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The BBC needs more Clarkson and less political correctness.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Privacy? Fuck you. by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Honestly, while I'm not British, I do have to agree with the view that this is a half-assed way of having a public service--just tax everybody, if you're going to do it at all. Ignoring the fact that they are flat-out admitting to engaging to mass surveillance--and assuming their claims are the complete and accurate truth--it still raises some serious questions on if the BBC's programming needs to be changed if enough people can be caught by the vans to hit the break-even point.

      If the vans can't hit the break-even point? It's an unjustifiable waste of public money, and the fig leaf of justification for invading the public's privacy ought to depend on it not being that.

      Meanwhile, if the vans are doing anything other than exactly what they're claiming they're doing? It is an unjustifiable invasion of privacy, and we can know this precisely because they're not admitting to it.

      Personally? I figure it's not even going to be passing the 'does only what they claim it does' test, and wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if monitoring for people streaming vid is at the bottom of the vans' priorities...

    4. Re: Privacy? Fuck you. by Cederic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, they kept giving him shit for his supposed racism but keep putting out job ads that state 'no white people'.

      BBC are now cunts and although I still enjoy the programming more than other channels and greatly appreciate the lack of adverts, they need a proper fucking rebuild to eliminate the bigots.

  3. Ethernet by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just came to say what everyone else already has - I use ethernet for streaming so fuck you BBC!

    Although I don't watch it anyway - anything good appears on other streaming services eventually anyway and I'm long past caring about seeing things on day zero. I already get letters almost weekly telling me they are now in the last stages of their investigation (for not paying my license fee). They are welcome to visit anytime, but unless they have a warrant my answer to any of their questions will be " "

    1. Re:Ethernet by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually- surely this is bollocks anyway. If you can determine who's watching iplayer by looking at encrypted packets then surely encryption is broken? Anyone with more experience care to comment?

    2. Re:Ethernet by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This vulnerability has been known about for a very, very long time. TOR actually defends against it by randomly combining, splitting and padding packets.

      Thing is, the detector vans have always been bullshit. They could never detect TVs, and have never been used as evidence in court to get a warrant or prosecution. They are just too scare people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Ethernet by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually- surely this is bollocks anyway. If you can determine who's watching iplayer by looking at encrypted packets then surely encryption is broken? Anyone with more experience care to comment?

      Yes. You fundamentally don't understand what encryption does, it protect what you're sending, not to who and when. If you SSH to a server, does your ISP see what IP you contacted? Yes. Does it see how much data you transferred and when? Yes, obviously. Same thing about wireless, only it's public for anyone to pick up when you used it and how much. Any normal network will rush to pass on data as quick as it can and you can use that by intentionally staggering. Say you request a 100 kB image from me, I send it as 1kb, pause, 3kb, pause, 5kb, pause, 7kb, pause, 11kb, pause, 13kb, pause, 17kb, pause, 19kb, pause, 23kb, pause, 10kb. Then I watch the packets on your WiFi and it's the same pattern. Coincidence? Pretty quick it won't be.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. How it works? Easy. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The same way their detector vans did that detected whether you have TVs equipped for terrestrial reception, and the same way lie detectors work: They don't. They just scare you into thinking they work so you comply.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Seriously? by SirAudioMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the UK has completely lost it's mind! Here's a novel idea that's so much simpler and how we approach it in Canada. Here we have the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) which is pretty much the same thing as the BBC - aka publicly funded TV, Radio, and Media. It is funded by the Federal taxes of all Canadian tax payers. Regardless of whether you use the CBC or not, you're paying for it. No special taxes that people must specifically pay, no special enforcement (except for maybe geo-ip), and no white vans running around snooping wifi traffic (which, here would be illegal) thanks to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (something the UK DESPERATELY NEEDS). The UK people really get the shaft with their government and it's constant big brother mantra and it's excessive need to invade the lives of its people.

    Can someone from the UK please explain to me the reason a 'TV' license still exists? It's not the 1950's!

    1. Re: Seriously? by John+Allsup · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Alternatives involve stuffing programs with ads and programming intendee to chase advertising money. The TV license allows the BBC to things which are good to have, but hard to make commercially viable. As soon as you make it optional, the kind of behaviour beloved of Sky becomes necessary. Competition just means you cannot have a simple single subscription either. For me a license funded BBC is a good thing, and corporate greed and market economics devastate the possibilities of broadcast TV, reducing it to a game of chasing money. Since we already have plenty of commercial TV, making the BBC commercial will add nothing, but take away a lot.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    2. Re:Seriously? by megalomaniacs4u · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can someone from the UK please explain to me the reason a 'TV' license still exists? It's not the 1950's!

      Because the BBC makes a big play of being free from government interference & claims to be impartial. You'll note the 2nd is complete and utter BS and the first isn't always true.

    3. Re:Seriously? by tliet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Logging in for the first time in years to reply to this.

      Why not paying from the taxes? Because the programs can then be politically influenced! That's why.

      You'll hear complaints in the Murdoch owned media that the BBC is left wing and biased. Trust me, after the Netherlands did away with the license fee (because it was cumbersome and people didn't understand why they had to pay for it) and switched to a tax payer funding, the usual suspects (usually on the right side of the political spectrum) have since started influencing and outright adjusting the content.

      In the Netherlands the long treasured pluriform system is now on the verge of collapsing under the weight of the ratings. I wouldn't go as far as saying the content is politically influenced, but the system is not completely without government influence either. The way the BBC is funded is actually very clever, its fee is set outside the political cycle. Here is some more info about this scheme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/9637e45d-c96c-36c6-9e3f-af141e81cab4 (Sorry, don't know how to make a hotlink on Slashdot)

      Quite a few people inside and outside the UK truly understand the value of the BBC. It goes far beyond Top Gear, don't believe the Murdoch owned media lambasting the BBC.

  6. Hoax by LQ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The old TV detector vans were a hoax to scare people into getting a TV licence. Enforcement was actually done by visiting addresses with no record of a licence. This is another con.

    1. Re:Hoax by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The old TV detector vans were a hoax to scare people into getting a TV licence. Enforcement was actually done by visiting addresses with no record of a licence. This is another con.

      Exactly what I thought.

      Hoax, at best a few empty vans driving round with TVLicensing.co.uk written on them. Maybe a HMRC logo to make it look official. A packet size is not going to convict anyone.

      The biggest problem the BBC has is with non UK users using the iplayer.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  7. It's the internet detector van! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Right, Viv - eat the WiFi!

  8. Thought a licence only required for live streams by caseih · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did this change recently? iPlayer to watch catch up programs never used to require a license.

    Besides all this, the answer is fairly simple. If they want to enforce license status, iPlayer should just require a login with an account the BBC can use to very status.

  9. Wow, so when will the Brits start fighting back... by BlytheBowman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ....against all of the Orwellian tyranny that has been growing rapidly there for the past couple decades? Or had the gov't locked everybody in full body restraints including rigid mitts (figurtavely, maybe starting literally?) so fighting back is now impossible?