BBC to deploy detection vans to snoop on internet users who watch

>>55944626

> BBC successfully lobbied the Government

>>55944626
So long as I continue to torrent ill be fine

>>55944626
>anyone who watches or records live programming – online or on television – needs to buy a £145.50 licence. But from September 1, those who use the iPlayer only for catch-up viewing will also need to pay the fee, after the BBC successfully lobbied the Government to change the law.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

Taxation without representation?

>>55944626
1 9 8 4
9
8
4

File: laughingsluts.gif (3MB, 355x201px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 355x201px

>>55944626
>britcucks

>>55944626
The UK became such a fucked up place in last few years, it's amazing.

File: image_17.jpg (12KB, 261x238px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 261x238px

>stingray vans deployed by the BBC
>mfw

>>55944626
What the actual fuck? They're snooping on private wifi traffic? Beyond being ethically fucked, it's retarded. Why not just have accounts for the iplayer or whatever.

>>55944626
>Why does the UK willingly submit to this?

they've got cameras and mics hanging for every light post

cucked population. not only do they submit, they'll defend it

how does the technology even work?
Are they just cracking every wifi network?

>>55944626
The BBC needs to die. They have become a fucking joke.
Also Brits are a bunch of spineless cucks . They might be worse than Swedes at this point.

Excuse my ignorance, but if my WiFi is secure then how will the vans see anything?

File: hestia.png (250KB, 274x403px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 274x403px

>>55944626
>1,000 cuck money fine plus a criminal record
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

File: 1386084552853.jpg (38KB, 500x500px)

38KB, 500x500px

More of a /pol/ response here, but ffs paying??? Britain go full socialist and leave that gd royal richass bs in a museum. No more fing materialism. They've become like salivating toddlers in front of money again and it's beneath their decorum.

>>55944626

>TV detection van meme
They pulled this shit years ago. It was a lie, their 'vans' did nothing.

>>55944626
>However, the BBC insists that its inspectors will not be able to spy on other internet browsing habits of viewers.
So they can see my traffic, but they can't see my traffic? I don't understand.

File: google-speech-voice-100339700-primary.idge[1].png (17KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 620x413px

>>55944703

> OK, Google, what's the passwords for the wifi networks I should be seeing at this geolocation?

"can identify viewing on a non-TV device in the same way that they can detect viewing on a television set" - it is an always has been literally a bloke looking through your window.

How much money are people wasting to stop piracy? Presumably more than they're actually losing from it, right?

>>55944732
>Presumably more than they're actually losing from it, right?
Definitely. Especially since the amount of money lost from piracy is exactly 0 units of currency.

File: banana.png (59KB, 240x245px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 240x245px

>>55944728
lol, this must be it
there's no way they'd be cracking everyone's wifi

>>55944626
UK just fucking sucks

too stupid for euro
too stupid for EU
too stupid for no surveillance camspam on the streets
too stupid for speeding cams that actually work (they have signs announcing these cams, lmao whats the point of that?)
too stupid for unregulated internet
too stupid for having joboffers for buttmad youth
too stupid for having straight teeth
too stupid for having a democratic (monarchy? are you kidding me?)
too stupid for not having terroristic attacks
too stupid for continuing top gear

there's more, but I think that's enough already too point out how stupid the monkey island is.

>reading the torygraph
>believing the torygraph

>>55944703
You underestimate how many normalfags leave their network unencrypted for the sake of convenience

>Use ethernet
What now BBCucks?

So just don't watch the fucking BBC.

File: 1463313416852.jpg (47KB, 327x378px)

47KB, 327x378px

>mfw I don't have a license
>mfw I don't use wifi for internet access
>mfw I live in a flat with a communal hallway
>mfw they can't tell I am watching TV
>mfw a letter drops through the door every couple of months I use it as free toilet paper
Come at me bra!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QnFwLqCQ24

>BBC
>big black cock

This is complete bullshit scare tactics. It's impossible to do and costly to do even if it was. Basically BBC license fee is enforced as a 'criminal' offence by a company called CAPITA. They hold a database of every address in the country that currently does not hold a TV license. All they do is send out letters and the occasional goon to check on a property and challenge you at the door as to whether you have a TV. If they can see your TV through a window or peeping through a letter box they can take you to court. Otherwise the onus is on them to prove it. If you are using a TV for viewing pre recorded material and non-live/almost non-live material you do not need a license. TV detector vans are fake and empty and are parked near retail parks and housing estates as a scare tactic. Every time this comes up it is proven as false and just another scare tactic.

Fuck the BBC!

>>55944626
Britain has nothing on Germany. Here they decided they don't need any of that drama so now everyone has to pay the TV fee, even if they live in a cabin with no electronics at all.

>>55944780
>Come at me bra!
As a northerner, I shall oblige.

>>55944717
It's called Republicanism, dumb fuck. Plus the Royal family brings in more money from tourism than they use.

>>55944840
That's horrendous.

>>55944847
Stop right there. I'm gonna need to see a reliable unbiased citation for that particular load of bullshit.

It's a scare tactic. The old tv detection vans consisted of a ford transit with a bit of wire poked through the roof and nothing more. The 'texhnology' was actually the BBC database of purchased licenses and a copy of the phonebook. Any addresses in the phonebook that were NOT in the database got a knock on the door, all on the basis that 99% of homes would actually have a tv, license or not.

This is exactly the same technique but they have added a motor to make the bit of wire turn so it's more futuristic.

>>55944626
wtf I love network cables now

Television detection has always been fake. They do it to scare pensioners.

The way it has worked historically is having a list of people who have a licence and assuming that those who don't are supposed to.

This is coming from a country that had (has?) a tax on the number of windows your house has. Is anyone actually shocked?

File: 1469124873904.jpg (95KB, 550x720px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 550x720px

wifi cucks absolutely blown the fuck out

The whole system is so incredibly ridiculous. So they don't want people who don't pay the fee to watch their programs online. Jesus, that seems like an unsolvable problem??? Like, you would need to give those people accounts with passwords, insane idea!

File: 1429491345185.jpg (385KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 2048x1536px

>>55944626
Typical everyday average British morning:
>wake up
>bobby knocks on door
>"oi! Open up you cheeky bastard and show me your sleeping license"
>fumble around and finally find my license
>"s-sorry good sir. It's right here...God save the Queen."
>bobby peers in and catches a glimpse of me tele
>"halt! Where's your TV license you cunt?!"
>draw TV license from me wallet
>bobby gives a look like the bloody Queen's dodger
>"oi mate! Where's your license for this license?"
>show him my license license
>"this license license is invalid. I'm taking you in!"
>bobby draws his toy gun
>stab him with my unregistered butterknife
>mfw I should've voted UKIP

File: 1263938280347.jpg (11KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x250px

>>55944900
>a tax on the number of windows your house has
what

so dns/vpn fags outside of the UK will be fine?

>>55944900
It was eventually abolished on 'health grounds'. kek

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/housing/window-tax/

>>55944626
>Wi-Fi detection
This is retarded and impossible, it is essentially impossible to pick up anything if you use HTTPS and your WiFi is encrypted.

>>55944960
Just connect and ethernet cable it's cheaper and it's bullshit anyhow.

good thing encryption is a thing right?

>>55944703
They can pick up the traffic, not log in to the router.
Fuck off from /g/ btw

REEEEE

Stupid UK cuckbois you better fight against this because your stupid culture spills all over other countries

File: 1451830005016.jpg (134KB, 433x480px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 433x480px

>>55944990

>>55944991
You do know it's encrypted pretty much by default everywhere, right?

>>55944990
well, they dont need the content. they just need the metadata (that you are getting traffic from iplayer)

so BBC pushed BREXIT..

>>55945010
I would hope so, but this is Yurpoe

TV detector vans have been debunked several times. There are probably around 5 in the entire country and they just park outside public areas as a deterrent. They do not work anymore. Nobody has ever been prosecuted on the basis of a detector van 'detecting' jack shit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2445153/Are-TV-detector-vans-just-cunning-trick-For-decades-claimed-trap-licence-cheats-In-fact-theyve-led-single-prosecution.html

File: bbc_betterlifead.jpg (13KB, 491x211px)

13KB, 491x211px

>tfw TV detection vans don't even work
>The government just has a list of what houses have TV licenses and what ones don't and decide to randomly search you if you don't have one because you're either a weirdo or illegally have TV
>Despite this, a majority of brits think vans driving around magically have the ability to detect if you have a TV in your house
>UK is literally a police state ruled by fear and intimidation

>be britbong
>use the fast-forward on my DVR
>hear someone knocking on the door
>see Abdul and Muamba at the front door
>oi cunt you have any idea how fast you were watchin telly
>have my TV License revoked
>go to jail
>mfw I have no face

it is quite difficult to buy a new tv without giving them your address

>>55945037
>>oi cunt you have any idea how fast you were watchin telly
ha

>>55944626
Yeah they said this in the analogue days m8.
Never happened.

>Being in europe would prevent shit like this.

NON BRITS AND TOFF KIDS
O
N

B
R
I
T
S

A
N
D

T
O
F
F

K
I
D
S

If we imagine this was acutally real, how would they pinpoint Wi-Fi connection to the house?

>>55945070
>If we imagine this was acutally real, how would they pinpoint Wi-Fi connection to the house?
there are apps in android store to that...

>>55945070
>>55945101
I just thought about it, drive up to houses without a licence and snoop that house.

>>55945070
Extremely simple to do.
IP is streaming BBC show.
Drive to house and see if there is wireless traffic, check mac address to see if its a tv.

>>55944626
>only 200 warrants are issued for this shit
>there more than 9million without a license

This is a giant scam that bullies people who do not know their rights.

>>55945060
Didn't you know that Europe and the UK are still signatories of a major copyright convention. Being in Europe is no excuse for copyright infringement.

>>55945137
So what rights do they have exactly?

>>55945142
You have to be able to prove that damages were caused to sue over copyright infringement.

Some teenager watching copyright shows isn't damaging.

File: _20160806_045144.jpg (3MB, 1978x6776px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1978x6776px

Really makes you think

>>55944753
>too stupid for euro
>a garbage currency with 4 debt ridden countries riding on it
Right, we're the stupid ones.

W-what happens if you fail the TV license test? I assume you have your television sets confiscated, but do you get a fined and/or prison time?

>>55945168
I don't think UK copyright law works that way desu.

>>55945184
There's no test to get a license, you have to pay a yearly fee for each household.

>>55945169
I dunno mate, you give a brit a spoon, and next thing you know he will be digging holes... and those holes could turn out to be dangerous weapons. Can't have that sort of thing going on now, can we?

>Biggest empire in world history
>Need to be 18 to buy a spoon
>Get arrested for not smiling

>>55945169
I think krauts are the new cuck queens.

>Americunt here
OK I cannot understand why would anyone need to pay so much a year to see live TV, are there no commercials? No TV streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, etc. that make Live TV obsolete like it did to me?

I don't understand why they would even want to prosecute over something that I want to assume is full of Ads like American television is.

>>55945242
Well, fucking read up on it, do we look like Wikipedia to you, shitstain?

>>55945242
>full of Ads like American television is.

It isn't. American TV is literally unwatchable. There's more ads than programming.

>>55944643
>BBC
>lobbied the government

The BBC IS the government.

>>55945242
There's Netflix here but the online streaming market is too fragmented by exclusives.

File: body my holding cell.png (115KB, 294x256px)

115KB, 294x256px

>>55945169
It's like I'm on crazy pills

its really not a big deal, they still cant decrypt normal traffic and i guess they would be able to decrypt their own tv traffic since its theirs to begin with they would have the keys. they said they would be looking at the fucking packet lengths and shit which would be interesting to see in practice.

in either case, ethernet renders that shit useless

>>55944840
To note you pay per flat/house you own, not per person. So if you own two summer houses you pay for them too.

>>55945242
145/12=???

File: wRDooZ.png (66KB, 749x419px)

66KB, 749x419px

>>55945155
I aint British so I do not know I can only surmise from compilation of you tube videos

>>55945264
No it's not. Go read the wikipedia page.

>>55944900
And what happened when you lived inside a glasshouse or a steel glass construction ?

>>55945273
They can't decrypt that either unless you retardedly have an open WiFi connection

>>55945196
Copyright infringement isn't stealing, and it isn't always illegal. They need to prove that you caused damage to the copyright holder.

If it didn't work that way you could walk down the street shouting Micky Mouse and Disney could sue you.

>>55945281
Then you cannot say that they are being scammed. They know full well that the cost of BBC TV is a yearly license and it's simple enough to avoid watching it. Knowing everything about the deal is not a scam.

>>55945294
Yeah, but you can still tell how much data is passing through based on the packet size and rate.
HIGH BANDWIDTH MUST MEAN HE IS WATCHING TV

>>55945294
yeah thats true as well

>>55945278
More than what I pay for Netflix.

It is hard to understand given I have lived abroad an I have never heard of paying a fee for live TV.

Outsiders to British culture really have no idea about the realities of our country, we are very homogenous with our thinking and we can generally smell shit from a mile away, unfortunately other countries don't seem to have the same level of skepticism we do.

TV licensing is a thing im sure some idiots get fined for but no, just because there is a scare tactic written in a taboid of all places (and our entire country knows not to trust the fucking newspapers) doesn't mean there are vans around every street corner, I and no one else I know has ever seen a fucking TV license detection van.

Oh, and plenty of other countries have TV licenses, Japan included and we all know how much you cockgobblers love that island too.

File: R1250-Receiver_medium.jpg (11KB, 264x370px)

11KB, 264x370px

>>55944885
it's not the wifi. they actually use some kind of EMF detector to visually look at what is on your screen. it works through walls.

it's been "spy" technology for a long time now
http://thefutureofthings.com/5509-reading-your-screen-through-a-wall/

>>55945299
That's not how it works in BBC land. They need to prove that you have received a broadcast in one of your devices in your household. If they do, they impose a fine that's backed by the courts.

File: possibb.png (49KB, 754x396px)

49KB, 754x396px

Is this feasible?

>>55945301

>have no obligation to say your name,or let them in your house as they are just hired goons

>keep coming trying to get in

>eventually come in with a warrant,with cops cause the guy you refused to enter right a report that he suspect you watch live telly without license.

>get compelled to say your identity cause a officer of the peace is present.

>>55945320
That's because you've never encountered a TV funding scheme that's similar to BBC.

>>55945169
Those plastic knives wouldn't be UK they're 99c not 99p

>>55945358
Yeah nah, that doesn't happen.

>>55945345
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

File: luvia.jpg (45KB, 334x334px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 334x334px

>>55945336
>we can generally smell shit from a mile away
I doubt it since you're full of pajeets and pakis and keen on importing even more.

>>55945336
Do you pay the license? 7 proxies etc..

>>55945358

>eventually come in with a warrant,with cops cause the guy you refused to enter right a report that he suspect you watch live telly without license.

Maybe if i've got a tv pointing outside my window and all the neighbourhood kids are watching BBC documentaries on it.

>>55945345

>Technique for reading a computer screen from a distance was recently developed by a German computer scientist working in Cambridge University. The technique allows eavesdropping on flat panels from a distance of dozens of meters away using fairly cheap electronic equipment.

>Dr. Markus Kuhn from Cambridge University developed a technique for eavesdropping on flat panels using radio antennas and a special software. This technique was demonstrated back in 2006 when Kuhn demonstrated how he could read a computer screen located 25 meters away behind three walls using only 1000 pound worth of equipment.


>The technique basically enhances the radio emissions produced by the computer cables sending a signal to the monitor. The image on the computer screen is fed through a cable one pixel at a time. Because the image is built in a certain order Kuhn was able to work out how to decode the color of each pixel from its particular wave form.

>Electronic eavesdropping goes a long way back. Back in 1914 the German army used valve amplifiers for listening to ground return signals of distant British, French and Russian field telephones. In the mid 1980s a different technique was developed by Wim Van Eck called the Van Eck Phreaking for eavesdropping on CRT monitors using electromagnetic emissions. Efforts have been made by intelligence agencies across the world to defend against this kind of espionage in the past using shielding and other methods.

File: phd.png (53KB, 555x633px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 555x633px

>the guy who is advising the BBC and wrote the new, secret detection methods did his PhD on the subject
>his PhD thesis is publicly available

lmao

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1470734/1/JS%20Atkinson%20-%20Thesis%20-%20Your%20WiFi%20Is%20Leaking,%20Inferring%20Private%20User%20Information%20Despite%20Encryption.pdf

>>55944976
You don't use HTTPS for streaming though. Hypothetically, if you have an open wireless network and if they stream with an unencrypted protocol (don't know shit about what protocols there are, but chances are they do), it would be possible to detect if they're streaming your shit.
I don't think they're actually gonna do it. Too much effort for catching too few people. Besides, isn't it illegal to connect to an open network without authorisation from the owner in Bongistan?

>>55945385

>Country votes to leave the EU because we don't want shitkins in and its not our laws that are enabling it but other countries giving refugees EU passports

Also the US is less white than the UK by a huge amount.

File: 1469884614959.jpg (56KB, 504x470px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 504x470px

>>55945410
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WIFI

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE VAN ECK EFFECT


FUCKING IDIOTS

>>55945412
You're loving the pajeet and you're going to get more of them even out of the EU.

>>55945257
>1 hour timeslot
>40 minutes or less of TV
>20 minutes of advertisements
I'm glad I ditched the cable TV meme

I still have a tv antenna for muh emergency broadcast and local television

>>55945425
My local news livestreams all their shit on their website.

For emergency shit i have a $20 weather radio.

File: CpHwKybUEAETJeD.jpg large.jpg (344KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1536x2048px

>>55945422

You're confusing muslims with indians, the majorty of indians who come to the UK are actually Sikh's or Hindu's and they are a result of trade relations between our countries that go back to the 1940's and shit.

Once again, our white national population is far less diluted than the US ever will be, and even then pajeet is never as bad as Jamall.

Islam on the other hand is a fucking problem for the whole world.

File: australia europe.jpg (55KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 750x600px

>Not just funding your state broadcaster from general revenue like a normal country

You strange Britain.

>>55945456
>You're confusing muslims with indians
I'm not. Both are filthy and you get also pakis.

AHAHAHAHAH

God the UK is fucking shithole

>>55944976
It's a spot of banter in the same spirit as the detection van, the general populace is still ignorant in the ways of the 'puter.
They can just about manage social media and apps.
Might as well tell them you can take a hot shit on their standard issue encryption, scare the kids, shake the moneybag filled with pennies etc etc.
I don't think anyone with even half a brain likes the bbc at this point, I don't.

Easiest way to do it is mandatory accounts like 4od seems to have that I just use a dummy one i found online for anyway.
Registration has them put their address in, can use it to log in from anywhere. This also means they can stop being retarded with the geoblock, but they won't.

>>55944626
There are a lot of things I don't get about your "Tv licensing"

>What if I use my TV only for as a computer screen or for consoles?
>What if I wach French/American/German TV?
>What if the hause has people that watch TV and people who don't?
>Is the license for watching BBC or just seeing any TV channel?

>>55945456
Sikhs are ok. Pakis are filth. Filth. Human garbage, quite literally.

>>55945420
Well shit, never heard about that before, but it looks like a really cool way to make this actually plausible. Thanks, anon, helpful as always ^__^

If you have a black and white telly its cheaper

>>55945496
They'll initially send you a letter regardless of your live tv use telling you in a nutshell 'oi cunt, you aint on our list, obviously a cunt so pay up!'

The licence is for live tv, if it's recorded they can fuck right off, this does not include recording live tv but wearing a blindfold to watch it later. They can even demand it for non-live now, jews.

The licence is for the house, it transfers to all residents and they can take it with them wherever, it's a bit odd.

All live tv, for now. Will include streamed media soon enough. Only the bbc actually gets the shekels.

>>55944948
Queen's dodger makes no sense, otherwise 10/10

File: 1417095638405.jpg (51KB, 342x329px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 342x329px

>>55944626
Wouldn't that cost a lot of money?
Why they are wasting more money if they are broke and doomed?
What's wrong with british people?

File: ULTRA HD CINEALTA 4K.jpg (448KB, 3840x2160px)

448KB, 3840x2160px

>england

>>55944868
Since you asked so nicely redditpr
http://youtu.be/bhyYgnhhKFw

>>55944948
wej

>>55945242
If this isn't bait then no, there are no ads on BBC TV channels and radio stations. The only form of ads are internal advertisements for their own content, which is only shown between shows and lasts for a couple of minutes max.

Also the BBC's news is debatably the most accurate and unbiased in the country.

>>55945496
Can't you read the wikipedia page? It only takes five minutes to get a reasonably decent education about the BBC tv licence.

>>55944828
That a fucking media broadcasting company can do this is beyond funked. Especially the reversal of the burden of proof part.

But detection vans weren't real anyway

>>55945565
>Also the BBC's news is debatably the most accurate and unbiased in the country.

>BBC
>unbiased.
Anon, I'm not even going to argue with you.

File: muhdrills.gif (570KB, 291x400px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 291x400px

>>55945565
>BBC
>unbiased

>>55945585
The burden of proof is on them. You can tell them to fuck off until the cows come home, they can only use scare tactics and are not allowed to enter your property without your say so.

>>55945607
Oh, you can cite a less biased and more accurate news source in the country? Are you going to cite Mr Anonymous Pol blogger by any chance?

>>55945392
So would CRT be immune to this?

cucks

>>55945623
No.

>>55945355
This is exactly what the telegraph claims that the BBC will be doing

>>55945631
Shucks.

>>55945623
You barely read it didn't you.

>>55944709
While you have to pay TV licensing in Sweden aswell, the bid to make PC/mobile users pay got shot down in the parliament. So only TV sets count.

For a quick saving of $250/year, fill in the form where you claim to have sold or returned your TV.

Last time I got a TV license registration form in the mail was ten years ago. Never heard a word since.

>>55945264
>>The BBC IS the government.
Holy shit you're a retard. The BBC is to the UK Govt as PBS is to the United States Govt (Only it gets much, much more funding). It is a Govt funded project, that does not make it the entirety of the Govt, nor does it give them any pull.

>>55945611
>>55945607

Wasn't there a study done showing that nearly everyone believed the BBC was biased against their political view, proving that in fact it's pretty well balanced in terms of coverage and people are just whiny babies?

>>55945642
>reading your own questions

>>55945642
CRTs aren't flat panels, which it specifically refers to.

Is there any practical way to get around this tech?

>>55945671
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet

>>55945399
exactly what I was looking for you ledge

>>55945671
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide

>>55945657
Like everything else ITT, this sounds like a cool story without a citation. You're probably the closest but we don't know what you're referring to.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+news+least+biased

>>55945681
How would ethernet prevent it from reading the screen?

>>55945585
It used to be the same in Germany, you heard all kinds of pathetic stories of those pieces of shit trying everything to somehow get a glimpse of your apartment. Since 2010 I think they don't exist anymore, now everyone has to pay per apartment, 18 EUR/month, which is insane. They get more money than ever before (literally billions), but the schedule is as bad as ever (especially because the money is diluted in hundreds of tiny broadcasters that nobody watches anyway. Original productions are absolutely unwatchable as Germany completely lacks any sort of film culture. Basically just cheap copies of American shows with bad actors and bad writing).

>>55945456
I've seen more ninjas on street with a pack(5-8) of their offspring, than white folks on the streets of London combined.

UK is already lost.

File: 1467778585769.jpg (250KB, 1050x1400px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1050x1400px

>>55945392
>>55945345
>>55945370
EVERYONE STOP AND READ THESE POSTS NOW BEFORE YOU SAY ANOTHER GOD DAMNED THING ABOUT WIFI

>>55945691
Sorry mate, it was about 8 years ago that I read it, I remember it was done by a BBC watchdog or something, which made people claim that the study itself was biased against the BBC being biased.

File: uwe_boll_finger.jpg (73KB, 476x470px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 476x470px

>>55945704
stay mad

>>55945701
Because it doesn't use that method because if you're not a retard you will have seen that it requires extremely specific information of the screen itself, and is from 2006 and is therefore talking analog.
If you're not a backwards faggot you'll be using HDMI or DP, which is digital.

I know the technique they'd be using. It's a passive traffic analysis technique based on an endpoint or middlebox injecting modulated patterns of jitter (second-order latency) into packet timings, and then trying to detect the modulation via spectral analysis of the dumps - GCHQ calls it "staining" when they've tried to use it against Tor or VPNs.

One small snag: it obviously increases latency and jitter. If they're controlling the endpoint (and they are controlling iPlayer) they could try to minimise this, but it would degrade streaming quality.

Another small snag: it has limited success outside of tightly controlled conditions, and it produces Type I errors at a rate which throws a big spanner in the works of using it in court. They might just use it as an indication to send the goons round instead.

>>55944887
Fake isn't quite right. There has been at least one "real" van - my dad used to work for RSRE/GCHQ down near Droitwich/Cheltenham, and helped wire it up. Bear in mind, this is a long time ago.

It used what is commonly now known as Van Eck phreaking/TEMPEST. That particular technique would have only worked on CRTs, although there are later techniques that do work on other things (including keyboards...).

However, I say "it" as in singular. I know of only one, and it was never driven used as far as I know. In practice they just had a list of addresses which don't have TV licences, and that's how they've done it ever since.

>>55944696
You're broadcasting.

>>55944710
802.11 encryption doesn't pad lengths or batch timing.

>>55945410
iPlayer might not (I don't know, I've never used that site). Everyone else does - YouTube, Apple and Netflix found it increases streaming reliability significantly.

>>55945022
The metadata is in the content... Dumb fuck. The point of encryption is to make data look like random bits, so there is no way they can see any metadata or whatnot.

>>55945726
please reference the posts this post references
>>55945715

>>55944626
How is this even supposed to actually work? They literally couldn't snoop on a private wireless network that's protected with WPA2. The only way this works is with open wifi networks.

>>55945726
So... not related to ethernet at all then?

>>55945671
it mentions crt in the last quote.

File: 1469925460669.jpg (57KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x450px

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IP SWITCHED NETWORKS

THAT MEANS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WIFI

THAT MEANS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ETHERNET

CABLES AND SCREENS EMIT A CERTAIN FREQUENCY WHEN THEY ARE POWERD ON. BY BEING SMART ENOUGH YOU CAN DETERMINE THE EXACT IMAGE BEING DISPLAYED ON A SCREEN IN REAL TIME BECAUSE OF A TECHNIQUE KNOWN AS THE Van Eck EFFECT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

http://thefutureofthings.com/5509-reading-your-screen-through-a-wall/

>Dr. Markus Kuhn from Cambridge University developed a technique for eavesdropping on flat panels using radio antennas and a special software. This technique was demonstrated back in 2006 when Kuhn demonstrated how he could read a computer screen located 25 meters away behind three walls using only 1000 pound worth of equipment.


>The technique basically enhances the radio emissions produced by the computer cables sending a signal to the monitor. The image on the computer screen is fed through a cable one pixel at a time. Because the image is built in a certain order Kuhn was able to work out how to decode the color of each pixel from its particular wave form.

>>55945750
You read them, dickhead.

A modern digital connection monitor won't be readable by pleb-spec BBC equipment, to do this we're talking DARPA/CIA restricted shit.

It's much, much easier and thus more likely to snoop on a wi-fi connection.

>>55945780
who's the dickhead now?

http://thefutureofthings.com/5509-reading-your-screen-through-a-wall/
>Dr. Markus Kuhn from Cambridge University developed a technique for eavesdropping on flat panels using radio antennas and a special software. This technique was demonstrated back in 2006 when Kuhn demonstrated how he could read a computer screen located 25 meters away behind three walls using only 1000 pound worth of equipment.


>The technique basically enhances the radio emissions produced by the computer cables sending a signal to the monitor. The image on the computer screen is fed through a cable one pixel at a time. Because the image is built in a certain order Kuhn was able to work out how to decode the color of each pixel from its particular wave form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

>>55945169
For fuck's sake, Britain, what are you doin?!?

>>55945801
Maybe if you READ. THE. FUCKING. THING.
You will see that's from 2006, you know, when analog connections were a thing.

>>55945820
okay, bub. guess i'll have to bring out the big guns. i'm sorry, but you must admit, and remember that you did this to yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVl_wM3L3n4

Be glad that you can even just not watch TV to dodge the license.

Here, you're forced to pay for the TV licensing even if you don't have a TV, or you're blind. I'm not even joking.

>>55945780
In contrast to conventional wisdom, flat-panel displays can pose a larger emission- security risk than CRTs.

He didn't test HDMI, only DVI and LCD

>>55945772
That's a different technique that requires different hardware and can be countered by software.

I'm asking about this 2006 method for flat panels and whether it affects CRTs or not.

>>55945834
>Antenna literally touching the screen
Yes, good work cunt.

Now in the real world, you're expecting hardware to be able to snoop on the PANEL ITSELF (like in the video) from outside a house.
Yeah, no.

The reason the 2006 method worked was because it was an analog signal being carried across a giant antenna (the cable). A modern digital signal cannot be picked up like this, and no, the BBC do NOT have hardware good enough to pick up interference from somebodies (shielded to modern standards) monitor through 3 walls from 50m away.

>>55945773
Have you ever actually done this?

WiFi 'staining' is a fuckton easier. Like I said above, there was only ever one TEMPEST van made here, and TV Licencing never used it.

>>55945496
You need a TV licence over here for (by any means) watching or recording any live television channel as it is being broadcast, or (new bit the BBC lobbied for here) for streaming from the iPlayer website.

Why they didn't just require usernames/passwords I don't know.

Foreign TV channels apparently are considered TV channels, if they broadcast like TV channels.

Other streamed media does NOT require a TV licence - you do not need a TV licence to watch YouTube, NetFlix, Twitch, etc - they are not TV channels.

Apparently the ITV/4OD catch-up website aren't covered either. That seems a bit odd, if the BBC one is. Maybe it's just 'cause the BBC asked for it.

The licence is per-household - if anyone there does, the household needs it.

So, I still don't, and they can still fuck off.

>>55945858
you fuckheads just don't get it.

it doesn't matter what cable the signal goes over. it only matters what is being displayed on the screen at that moment in time.

this is how spies read what's happening on computers from a building away, through 3 layers of walls.

you think a van of equipment is too expensive for the BBC to buy and roll around the street? they'll be able to see what's on everyone's TV, as if they literally had X-ray goggles.

time to build faraday cages

>>55945866
>Yeah, no.
uh, yeah. yes. that's exactly what they are doing. right now. it's a thing. get smart.

>>55945169
1 9 8 4
9 8
8 9
4 8 9 1

>>55945866
That is a very small and low-power option. I'm sure the BBC aren't using hand-held radios for their spying methods.

>>55945866
>>Antenna literally touching the screen
yeah, it's a $5 transistor radio, genius.

not a £1 mil sterling van, like the BBC owns

>>55945565
>Also the BBC's news is debatably the most accurate and unbiased in the country.

>unbiased and accurate

>spends shit tons of time shilling Hillary and whining about Trump with the main focus on "the wall", without ever doing their job as an "unbiased" reporting organization and ever mentioning Hillary Clinton's own vocal admission of being in support of the wall as something very relevant to news readers and people reading this coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlFi0QUboxs
>doesn't even attempt to make an article indicating the corruption and ideology "in-common" between Trump and Hillary
>always biased towards feminism, without ever questioning the repercussions of an organization being one-sided and biased under whatever justifications, or such bias being used to twist and constrain the the "well meaning" of an organization as an excuse to thought police; but is fine accusing religious organizations of the same shit feminism is afflicted with even though the two types of organizations are a perfect proof of Horseshoe Theory
>front page of the BBC is articles about a man in Australia being bitten by a spider on the balls, because that's relevant news nowadays apparently
>BBC fucks up Top Gear, in the most retarded idiotic way ever, as they have most of their programs
>BBC opens comments only on the most irrelevant and trivial shit, like the article on the jargon behind the Nuclear Submarine where the commenters themselves pointed out that the Nuclear Submarine is called that because of the engine, and not because of the Trident payload it DOESN'T contain, after BBC tries to engineer an anti-nuclear discussion and fucks up

GET
THE
FUCK
OUT

I don't get it. They exited out of the EU yet they're doing some totalitarian shit.

File: Bu3My_0IAAAYrdw.png:orig.png (776KB, 720x711px)

776KB, 720x711px

>>55945169
Honestly, this one is worse than all of that.

>>55945893
The Orwellian Internet control shit has nothing to do with the EU.
It's a mix of UK's desperate need to feel important after they have lost a geographical empire in the real world and attempting to build themselves a new one digitally,
and UK's cuckoldry towards USA which is the main and only lobbyist in anti-piracy.

>>55945879
>>55945886
>They're actually expecting the BBC to be competent
Come on now, boys.

All they'll be doing is snooping on the wi-fi, they're not going to be using quasi-restricted technology.

>>55945888
Hey didn't you get the memo? "Biased" has a new definition since 2013. It means "talking about things I don't like".

>>55945888
Ho boy you should watch some american media.

>>55945715
Sauce nigger

>>55945927
>All they'll be doing is snooping on the wi-fi
fuck off bbc shill. you're fucking retarded if you're not a shill btw

>>55945868
No, mate, in 2016, spies read that by hacking the computers or being the janitor.

The techniques used by GCHQ to do this reliably require 'illumination' to boost the signal coming back from a bug they planted. If you don't know what that is, let me explain: it's a great big directional fucking microwave beam, and the signal modulates the reflection.

Van Eck phreaking for modern equipment does not yield good results in real-world scenarios unless you're in the same room, or right through a thin wall, even with very expensive equipment. "Van driving down the street" is simply not good enough, the sync signals drop off too quick, inverse square eats its lunch.

Snooping on the cables also has a problem because of HDCP - sure that's cracked, but the crack is active, not passive - you need to be Mallory, not Eve. So, unsuitable for this.

802.11, on the other hand, intentionally broadcasts. That's a lot stronger, and directional antennas not only help with triangulation but allow for heavily boosted reception with a good SNR over a well-understood and easily-modeled band.

Someone in this thread literally linked you to the PhD thesis of the bloke who designed what these new 'vans' will apparently be using.

In reality though, I expect they'll do what they did last time: buy one van, then just use the fucking database. Surveillance gear is expensive and unreliable. Databases are cheap and ... also unreliable, but they're cheap.

>>55945932
Nobody argues that American media is unbiased. That's a given. Ergo there is no point bringing it into the discussion.

>>55945927
Cracking WPA2 in any practical manner would probably require a lot more competence than just buying a big antenna.

Like last time, they stick a few satellite dishes on vans, drive them around and spook people into paying their TV licenses.

>>55945962
It's not just 'a big antenna', we're talking massive power supplies, multiple directional antenna and the ability to decode all of the hundreds of different monitors and TVs on the market.
In the back of a van.

Meanwhile, packet sniffing retards who still use WEP or open networks is cheap and simple.

We are talking the company that drove around in empty vans to try and freak people out, niggers. They're not going to be spending the money and effort.

>Britain
>continues to overwhelmingly support and elect the most right wing government in its history
>votes to leave the EU
>but they're also cucks

So, which is it? Make your minds up

>>55945355
>certian arangements of 1s and 0s are considered illegal

how about
>certain lengths of 1s and 0s are considered illegal.

>>55946054
>Britain
>is cucks
>people get tired of it
>elect right wing government and leave the EU in a fight against cuckoldry
You need to put a little more power into your brain anon.

>>55946073
It's hard to decipher text that's full of buzzwords because by definition, they mean nothing.

>>55946073
>establishment mouthpiece (BBC) successfully lobbies right wing government to charge license fee for catch-up TV
>somehow this is a fight against cuckoldry

>>55946144
>establishment mouthpiece (BBC)
Oh how wrong you are anon.

>>55946169
If you paid any attention during the Scotland referendum, you would know that the BBC are far from impartial, especially their news reporting.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14662655.River_City_star_reveals_BBC_bosses_ordered_him_to_delete_tweets_he_posted_during_independence_referendum/

Britcuck on suicide watch

>>55946144
BBC is just an extension of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM_Rit62S1k

UK being cucked by American corporations to incarcerate its own people, or incarcerating its own people over irrelevant trivial or manipulated shit by giving power over law to private organizations and corporations.
When a country's law is being policed by private organizations, it is fucking cucked.

>>55946225
No.

>>55946247
Yes.

>>55944780

>>55946225
I agree with you, but that's not the /pol/tard definition of being "cucked". They should be loving all the power being handed to corporations.

>>55945950
inaccurate and gay.

it's not "van eck phreaking" its LIKE van eck phreaking

>>55946253
buzzwords are not an argument senpai

>>55946282
I have forwarded towards a video plainly showing private goons attempting to act like the law, in front of the police itself ironically and shamelessly.
You buzzword about buzzwords.
The argument is pretty much finished here.

>>55944753
The speed cameras are done well. They're there to prevent speeding, not catch people speeding

>>55945950
enjoy getting vanned because you were stupid enough to think they're gonna be targeting wifi (which is illegal) and not just peering into your house with superman-like xray vision (which has been made legal, apparently)

>>55946330
I'm not sure what you mean but I suppose you win if you declare the argument finished. Congratulations internet argument winner.

>use van with equipment to detect if a TV signal is being displayed on a TV inside a house
>query database with current address based on GPS location to see if there is a TV license at this premesis
>automatically send a fine in the mail

literally software to do this instantly. sure, you can challenge it in court like a traffic ticket, but you'll probably lose

>>55945399
>>55945686
Read the thesis which is directly responsible for the telegraph article,
summarising some what briefly:
>Over wifi in closed-world scenario they could detect skype >90% of the time
>Open world tests suffered a bit
>Large amount of false-positives
>they can determine what apps you use over wifi, to 100% accuracy but this was deemed as a gross invasion of privacy.
>They could detect this over dozens of meters
>Ethernet obviously stops the wifi leak.

Quick run through, with relation to the BBC, they have a 'proven' method for telling if you use the BBC iPlayer App, and can tell if you stream from the BBC over wifi on a computer but that's it... they can't prove you are even watching it or that you aren't idle, and the false positives from the study would likely carry over into real world scenario both good defences if this ever got any more serious aka court.

>>55946398
yeah ethernet would be good news if they were actually targeting network activity in their profiling. but they are not. they are targeting the specific EMR that TV stations encode into their broadcast.

>>55945834
it works something like the video posted here. instead of a "sound" it's just a signal, like a "tag" or something that identifies the source station. it's a fingerprint, if you will. all stations do it, hell, all broadcasting equipment does it.

it's encoded in the visual information coming out from the display. the only way to stop it is to turn off your tv.

>>55946423
>the only way to stop it is to turn off your tv.
turn off your display*

>>55946398
Isn't that wifi design failure that it allows to determine what kind of packets are transmitted? Well, it is somewhat possible and expectable. But you can still use encryption unless it is banned.

What a great country, to disturb live of peaceful righteous citizen just to find one or two 'pirates' while spending whole bucket of $$$.

>>55946423
I'm only referring to the iPlayer detection methods they claim to have gained, don't give a hoot about TV wands
>>55946431
Yeah, the guy says this in the article that he shouldn't be able to passively determine what you are doing on the wifi without touching the encryption he refers to it as 'wifi leaking'

>>55946431
it's got nothing to do with network traffic.

In Finland they changed from TV License to YLE tax some years ago.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-06-08-19-49-1-1.png (188KB, 1080x822px)

188KB, 1080x822px

>>55945420
this

>>55946423
Stop spreading this bullshit you dumb cunt, wi-fi snooping is bad enough as it is without your useless conspiracy theory shitting the info up for people.

>tfw torrenting with direct IP from ISP -no seedbox or VPN.
>tfw have FireTV with kodi streaming all Exodus, phoenix, etc plugins.
>tfw can watch all Chinese cartoons.
>tfw you don't have to deal with feminism, girl coding, kode with klosy (or whatever its called)
>tfw no data caps.
>tfw they don't give a flying fuck for whatever you do on internet
>tfw it is great to live in 3rd world country.

Quick, one of you fa/g/gots, tell me how I beat this

>inb4 Incognito

>>55945623
CRT is the easiest to pick up

File: [FFF] Shokugeki no Souma - 18 [BD][720p-AAC][FB06AF0C].mkv_snapshot_06.59_[2016.08.04_14.48.06].jpg (146KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1280x720px

What are they THINKING?

>>55946479
Faraday cage. Enjoy your no cell phone.

>>55944703
They know beforehand the size of & frequency of packets sent from iplayer so they don't need to decrypt anything, just look at the packet sizes

reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10G254


Routers should really be adding a random series of bytes at the end of each packet to prevent this kind of snooping, I always assumed WPA would prevent this on its own

>>55946484
They are thinking that people are watching live BBC tv without paying for a licence.

>>55946497
Someone will argue this silhouette effect to the major ISPs and terrorism blah blah safety blah and it might get adjusted

>>55945169
I understand that spoon thing, but if you have a drug problem in your country, I don't think banning spoons would stop it. Go wild on the people who move them into the country and distribute them, not on the citizens themselves.

>>55945169
>get one or get done
>evaders will pay

File: Edsger_Wybe_Dijkstra.jpg (297KB, 1024x1365px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1024x1365px

>>55946465
it's a published research paper, not a conspiracy theory. you should be in charge of reading comprehension.

They have no problem degrading signal quality nor adding latency to people that pay for a service.

>>55944724
It's called lying.

>>55944739
Oi, I'd give them a can of shit if they baked at my door. Those are worth like 20k to the right collector.

Yes they are spying on your wifi. YES they can see what is on your screen without even bothering with wifi or ethernet.

It's like the Van Eck Effect, and it works with any type of display, even through walls. That's the nature of electromagnetic radiation emitted from all electronic devices, ESPECIALLY displays.

>>55945128
>Change mac of my router to Samsung TV
>TV Licensing stops by
>no TV in the house

Fuck this shit. Most of the UK is using torrents anyway.

At least I'm not in the US...

>TV LICENSE
what the fuck is this

>>55946597
They can't spy on your wifi even with Van Eck effect.

>>55946647
Read the fucking wikipedia page.

As a Brit, this means literally nothing. TV license is like £150 a year you pay to the BBC, if you don't pay it but continue to be watching BBC channels on TV, it's illegal and you run the risk of paying a fine.

If someone doesn't pay the £150 a year for some of the most quality, commercial free TV, radio, and websites available in the UK anyway, then they probably deserve to get caught and pay a fine.

>>55946651
You get an A, for astuteness.

Van Eck effect is for screens, only. They can spy on your screens with the van eck effect. They can spy on your wifi with different, but commonly known means.

File: wall e.webm (784KB, 240x426px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 240x426px

>>55946651
/g/ in charge of reading comprehension

The BBC can't possibly keep running this scam for much longer. People are moving to on-demand TV in droves.

Just charge a fucking subscription for iPlayer. Use viewing cards to encrypt terrestrial transmissions and charge a subscription for that.

Save shitloads of money by not sending TV license inspectors around etc.

>>55944996
in england every dog must be chipped, £35 a pop, owners name and address, i suppose thats a licence of a kind

>>55946701
>Van Eck effect is for screens, only. They can spy on your screens with the van eck effect. They can spy on your wifi with different, but commonly known means.
the only rub is spying on wifi violates wiretapping laws. but they just were able to lobby the government and make visually peering into your home on the electromagnetic spectrum completely fine and dandy.

they will primarily be using the digital equivalent of VEP to verify TV Licenses.

>>55946731
TV Licenses are how BBC gets the majority of their money though, they don't run advertisements or anything. They're not for profit either, so it's not like they're stealing all our money and rolling in £20 notes.

>>55945918
>freddos are security locked
>welp no stealing for me, guess I'll just ignore those unprotected sherbet fountains underneath

I listen to 5live, 6mix, some radio 1 and radio 2.
I use the bbc website for news and sport.
I watch programs on bbc 1, 2 and 4.
The license fee costs me about 40p a day.
I'm OK with this.

If I only used a TV for ps4 games and watching the occasional episode of corrie I'd be mad as fuck about having to pay for the BBC but I use their services a lot so what the fuck

>>55946331
They only prevent speeding for the length of the white ladder lines on the road though.

>>55946906
Speed cameras are located on known black spots. UK society has an especially strong motivation to get people to drive at the signposted limits at those exact spots.

>>55946758
It's not the cost of it I take issue with. It's just the whole concept of the TV license is antiquated and unfit for purpose when TV consumption is fast moving to the internet, and realistically enforcing a license will become unfeasibly expensive and intrusive.

File: V.For.Vendetta.2006.jpg (160KB, 1280x528px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1280x528px

Did people miss this scene in "V For Vendetta" ?

Looks like they did.

>>55946501
If they were thinking that, they would set up an account system for the live player instead of acting like some secret police force with stingray vans.
A simple solution being shunned and replaced with a snooping solution. Makes you think a bit.

File: gottfrid-svartholm.jpg (188KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1024x768px

Time to stock up on tin foil.

>>55947218

>young Julian Assange
>already paranoid

Makes sense.

>>55945355
It's possible in lab environments.If there's something else online, it'll screw the picture.

>>55946981
I recommend you fight it the principled way by playing within the rules: state to the licensing team that you refuse to buy a license, refuse to allow the licensing inspectors to inspect your home without a warrant, refuse to watch BBC tv in any form. I suspect that you're still going to watch BBC tv anyway.

>>55947218
is that gottfrid from the pirate bay?

Dystopian future here we come! Corporations stronger than government just as predicted. Looks like we're right on schedule for 1984 in 2050.

>>55947218
is that gottfrid from thepiratebay???

>>55944626
Land of the free doesn't have this problem.

>>55947112
They can't suddenly stop broadcasting over the air waves in the vicinity of an unlicensed household without affecting the licensed households. Are you suggesting that they should change their broadcasting system to do something like that?

>>55947218
Is that tinfoil actually going to do anything?

britcucks we may be, but germany has it worse. everyone has to pay a tv tax, even if you don't own a tv

I don't see how this can work without breaking RIPA laws

>>55944626
they can't catch me
I'm in Amerika

File: ntpatnaP0v1ririjeo1_500.gif (1MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x500px

>>55945867
>Why they didn't just require usernames/passwords I don't know.

Because that would be a sensible way to make absolutely certain that subscriber data matched the viewer to the iPlayer. By going this new route, they are working one step closer to the dream of adapting the "TV License" to apply to the internet in general in Britain.

Monolithic TV broadcasting is on the wane -- having such widespread use of the internet and not having their cut is not acceptable to the BBC. It's only a matter of time.

>>55946216

Nice unbiased newspaper you got there m8.

>Herald declares 'yes' for Scottish independence
>http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/04/sunday-herald-declares-yes-for-scottish-independence

i have a feeling that this is pure bollocks. all you'd need to do is change your MTU

>>55946472

Where is this utopia I need to emigrate to?

File: laugh crying.png (19KB, 390x470px)

19KB, 390x470px

>>55946697
>If someone doesn't pay the £150 a year for some of the most quality, commercial free TV, radio, and websites available in the UK anyway, then they probably deserve to get caught and pay a fine.
>£150 a year for some of the most quality, commercial free TV, radio, and websites available in the UK anyway
>£150 a year
>no white males may apply

oh anon, thanks for the laugh you cuck

>>55944767
None. Normies plug in the router they get from their ISP and never change the password let alone configuring security settings. Everything here is WPA2

>>55944626
iudfgbnihoadfhnf

this would break a lot of EU laws (we are still a member for at least another 2 years)

The British are an inherently cucked nation.

Now that they're free to practice their own evil beliefs, they will show their true cuck nature.

Would a VPN negate packet sniffing?

>>55947370
I very, very rarely watch any live TV, let alone the BBC.

how exactly does the technology work for them to know what's on your TV?

>>55947724
The Herald (the daily paper) has a different editor and was strongly against independence.

The Sunday Herald supported independence, one of very very few to openly do so.

>>55947920
This is the technology board. People like you are not allowed here. >>>/b/ >>>/v/ >>>/r/eddit

>>55944753
>(monarchy? are you kidding me?
I mean come on it's 2016

>>55947923
its a big secret. they don't like to reveal their methods in case people circumvent (in other words, its not real, its just a scare tactic that gullible cunts keep believing)

I have never heard of a successful prosecution where evidence from a TV detector van was submitted

File: 1ba083ff35fcbf0b3266f762d8d4945e87aff5b30d14d44f9c68243371cdda32.jpg (73KB, 326x714px)

73KB, 326x714px

>>55947948
It was an honest question fgt

>>55948007
>>>/out/
>>>/t/umblr

>>55947923
See >>55945355

>>55948007

Tor and certain VPNs can pad frame sizes and adjust timing which can thwart such measures, however, they usually introduce performance concerns. Short answer is yes.

File: 1412530018820.jpg (218KB, 1617x635px)

218KB, 1617x635px

>>55948019
I can keep this up all day pal

File: tidus.jpg (30KB, 475x343px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 475x343px

>>55946697
Jesus Christ

>>55948055

dude when you are watching a video there's a stream data it isn't just 6 bytes to spell out the name of the movie you are watching

>>55948094
>BBC is the only streaming service on the internet

File: HEY YOU.png (3KB, 555x122px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 555x122px

>>55948060

Disgusting degenerate. It still has XY chromosomes so therefore it is still a male. imma gonna rev up my gas chamber now

>>55948123
And? I know Sharia doesn't allows it, but on civilized countries we have something called freedom.

>>55948104

>strawmanning this hard

>>55948159

Where does your freedom end? At what point do we stop entertaining mentally ill people? Suppose it's pedos next being accepted - would you then support it? I'd imagine you would as sheep usually follow each other. Don't be a hypocrite now, "freedom", remember?

>>55944626
Britcucks literally getting cucked by the BBC. You can't make this shit up.

>>55945704
This is the future you chose

File: 1251840416265.jpg (83KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x500px

>>55948235
and they love it

>>55948233
Nice flawled logic you have there, mate. Active pedos harm children physically and mentally. I could be with you if trans people scarified children to self-implant their sexual organs or some shit like that.

But don't be discouraged, you could go to some third world country with people that share your way of thinking (i recommend Uganda, where even being gay is against the law).

Hold up, question for the Brits here. So, if you own a TV, you HAVE to have a TV license? Even if you never use it to watch Cable/Satellite/OTA TV channels? Some dude will come knock on my door because I use my TV for Netflix and video games?

>>55948325
It's the same in Sweden, if you own anything that can receive the signals you have to pay for the license.

Computers too nowadays because they put their shit online.

>>55944626
>>55945169
this is actually really horrible, I had no idea the UK was that bad

are there even any good european countries left? I know sweden, france, germany are beyond the point of no return as well.
fuck this gay earth

>>55944626
lol because this isn't way easier, cheaper, and already done on an ISP level

fucking retarded brits man, at least they brexitted

>>55948286
>Nice flawled logic you have there, mate

No, it is not flawed logic. I knew you would retort with this fallacy as you don't think, just react. It's easy to spot someone who regurgitates.

I never gave a slippery slope but suggested you perform a little thought experiment. I did not say things would lead to accepting pedophilia, but *suppose* the world did: would you also accept it, as according to you, "because freedom"? If not, not everyone is free, are they? If everyone is not absolutely free to do as they wish, why use it as a general catch-all, handwaving excuse for solely trannies? Where do you stop is my original question.

File: paul_r_mchugh_md2.jpg (6KB, 166x253px)

6KB, 166x253px

>>55948233
>>55948286
>>55948379

>Dr. Paul R. McHugh
>author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles
>former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry
>said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment
>that sex change is “biologically impossible,”
>people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

ayyy lmao

>>55948476
How does he explain the fact that shemales can be pretty hot?

File: 1462830314178.jpg (96KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x720px

>>55948476
FAGS BTFO

>>55948476
I'm the second poster you replied to, and basically you told us what everybody knows. The point is that for now, "transitioning" is the only somewhat treatment we know. In the future there will be -probably- a different way to somewhat treat this disorder, but the patient is the one who should chose what he/she wants to do.

>>55948379
No, you're the one that didn't got me. What i mean is that trans aren't hurting anyone, unlike Pedos.

>but *suppose* the world did
A lot of conservative people thinks like you, every little proposed change is followed by these apocalyptic thoughts.

In a lot of parts of Africa they don't allow gay marriage because they -stupidly- think their society will crumble.

>>55948504
checkmate

>>55944626
>The BBC is to spy on internet users in their homes by deploying a new generation of Wi-Fi detection vans to identify those illicitly watching its programmes online.

This is legit autism. Why not force TV license verification when you go to shitty iPlayer?

Most of the stuff on there is garbage. They can fuck themselves. I don't watch their shit anyway.

These fucking cunts bully people who only watch Netflix. It's retarded.

>>55948854
>What i mean is that trans aren't hurting anyone, unlike Pedos.

This is irrelevant to the argument. It is irrelevant because we're not arguing over who harms anyone else via their mental disorder. You're effectively throwing a red herring.

I see you are steadfastly refusing to even think outside your politically correct box. It took you long enough to reply with such intellectual dishonesty I am surprised.

>A lot of conservative people thinks like you

Which you have defined through pointing to the most egregious example i.e. uncultured tribal-loons in Africa. Nice one.

No, perhaps realists just see that accepting mental disorders is a folly. Entertaining them is worse. You're an enabler wrapped up in whatever current identity politics trend of the moment.

>>55948325
>>55948336
no, you don't have to pay the license. only if you watch live broadcast TV and from september 1st, catchup TV
I have a TV and i only use it for vidya, i do not pay the license. They check every two years, but cannot enter your house without a court order.

>>55948358
Sweden isn't even that bad freedom-wise. In terms of crime most of the "troublemakers" reside in the southern cities. Northern Sweden is extremely racist.

Aside from London and some dodgy towns+overpopulation, the UK is actually OK; if someone tried that TV license scare shit they would at best be told to fuck off. Consider the fact that people are OK with these bullshit laws in place because police in the UK are virtually non-existent as long as you don't commit any serious crimes. They're mostly there to stalk teenagers at night in their cop cars to make sure they don't do anything bad.

Of course this doesn't apply to cities... and I never said UK had little crime (it has a LOT of crime, violent assault is more common in the UK than even in the US) but just thought I'd give a perspective on why brits are completely apathetic to this.

>>55945242
>OK I cannot understand why would anyone need to pay so much a year to see live TV, are there no commercials? No TV streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, etc. that make Live TV obsolete like it did to me?
>I don't understand why they would even want to prosecute over something that I want to assume is full of Ads like American television is.

Correct

Assuming I moved to a new house and put a TV in my lounge connected to my server, then pricks like the TV Licensing cunts would try to barge in for me watching Netflix.

Completely retarded

>>55949002
netflix and amazon prime are allowed, you don't need a license for it. only broadcast TV and from september 1st, iplayer catchup requires a license.
If you get a knock on the door, its up to you if you want to let them in to check, you are not obliged to unless they have a court order.

File: Bruce Lee.jpg (15KB, 362x372px)

15KB, 362x372px

>>55944626
>From September 1, those who use the iPlayer only for catch-up viewing will also need to pay the fee, after the BBC successfully lobbied the Government to change the law.
You fucking what, mate?!
Since when what why how this was not in the news.

http://linuxcentre.net/getiplayer

>>55948975
>This is irrelevant to the argument. It is irrelevant because we're not arguing over who harms anyone
I do. Because there isn't a more effective treatment for dysphoria right now than transitioning; it's the best we have and again, they're free to chose that path. And if there is a better way to treat this mental disorder, then please link me to it.

>politically correct
> in whatever current identity politics trend of the moment

I simply not care about that haha. What bugs me is that there are a lot of people out there who are actively and angrily ranting about trans and gay topics.

I think that unless you're a psychiatrist -or a religious person fighting for muh family values-, you should be thinking about the real problems that affect our society.

Who the fuck cares if a random guy cuts and reshapes his wee wee?

>It took you long enough to reply with such intellectual dishonesty I am surprised
I doing other things mate. I don't like to waste my time staring at the screen until someone gives me a (you) :)

Let's say I don't watch TV and I only use my TV to watch pirated anime.

Would I still have to pay your TV tax?
You britcucks are fucked.

>>55949409
no. but if you lived in germany you would have to pay €17 even if you don't own a tv. swedish TV bosses forced it to cover all internet connected devices a few years ago, but supreme court reversed it.

>>55948902
Checking the TV license database wouldn't be a reliable way of doing it. You could have several people sharing the same details. You'd have to impose some kind of limitation like only allowing 2 registered devices at once, which would probably cause uproar.

>>55949409
No, but you would get hounded with threateningly worded letters, and they might eventually show up at your door. You don't have to let them in. If you did let them in, you'd have to prove you don't use your TV to watch live broadcasts. (having an RF socket on your TV, even if it isn't connected to an aerial, is enough evidence for them).
When I moved into a house a few years ago, the previous landlord had left behind a TV with the RF socket ripped out. Strangely enough, within a few days of living there I started getting letters from TV licensing in red ink, basically trying to scare me into paying up.

>>55949706
my RF socket is intact, but i have no roof/loft aerial, no satellite dish. you don't have to vandalise your TV to prove you don't watch broadcasts. to make a prosecution they have to collect evidence of you watching, or try to trip you up into admitting you have watched.

File: BUY GOLD GOY.jpg (38KB, 652x365px)

38KB, 652x365px

>>55944626
>Detection vans can identify viewing on a non-TV device in the same way that they can detect viewing on a television set