TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
Pottsey;30483649 said:
The theory behind wireless scan is correct you can identify packet patterns without access to the wireless network key. Nearly 100% of the time you can also tell which house the wireless connection is based in. I don't understand why so many people are making fun of it like its impossible when its not.
Click to expand...

People aren't making fun of the technical aspects.
 
Pottsey;30483998 said:
I must have misunderstood then, so what are they making fun off?
Click to expand...

The idea that this is actually going to happen, it very likely isn't. I mean look at all the convictions that came about as a result of the original TV detector vans.... :D
 
dowie;30484004 said:
The idea that this is actually going to happen, it very likely isn't. I mean look at all the convictions that came about as a result of the original TV detector vans.... :D
Click to expand...
But its already happened hasn't it! Look at the Polish immigrant who was convicted watching wirelessly on the laptop without them entering the house.
 
Pottsey;30484010 said:
But its already happened hasn't it! Look at the Polish immigrant who was convicted watching wirelessly on the laptop without them entering the house.
Click to expand...

Look at what? You haven't posted a link to any article.
 
asim18;30471951 said:
No. The WAP for your LAN will be separate to the public access one. Whether it's virtual LAN or whatever it'll be separate.

Public traffic is most likely isolated using some form of tunnelling too.

There's no way in hell the public access WAP's vLAN will grant access to your actual private LAN.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying theyd be on the lan.

I'm saying it would show up as my routers/house accessing the bbc with no license.

or heck i can log my stuff onto the public side of my bt router and access the bbc with no license and say "not me look it's the public wifi"
 
Tefal;30484021 said:
I'm not saying theyd be on the lan.

I'm saying it would show up as my routers/house accessing the bbc with no license.

or heck i can log my stuff onto the public side of my bt router and access the bbc with no license and say "not me look it's the public wifi"
Click to expand...

Ok you're "not saying theyd be on the lan", but you don't understand that they have to be on the LAN. For something to "show up as my router/house accessing the bbc" it needs to be behind your LAN, or NAT to be more precise.

When you connect to a public BT WAP, it does not show the traffic as coming from your personal house connection, that would be absolutely disastrous and a serious security issue. Your private LANs public IP address will be different to the one assigned to the public WAP's NAT.

As for your last point, yes, you can log into a public BT access point and watch iPlayer, but you cant say "it wasn't me"... Identification of specific devices behind NATs is one of the mandates of the IPB.

Just think about a 3G/4G connection, you are sharing a NAT with many other users, but distinction of individual devices is still utterly easy.
 
Pottsey;30484010 said:
But its already happened hasn't it! Look at the Polish immigrant who was convicted watching wirelessly on the laptop without them entering the house.
Click to expand...
I'm interested to find more info on this if you have a source, but Google seems to think it doesn't exist. Even if this did happen, how would they prove he was using the laptop, and how would anyone get hold of the laptop in the first place unless he is inviting TV licence people or police into his home and admitting everything?
 
Electronic surveillance tech does exist that could do it. You could use a "Tempest" attack to see whats actually displaying on the screen from outside the house. Whether the BBC have access to those kind of tools is another matter, probably not.
 
Nasher;30486357 said:
Electronic surveillance tech does exist that could do it. You could use a "Tempest" attack to see whats actually displaying on the screen from outside the house. Whether the BBC have access to those kind of tools is another matter, probably not.
Click to expand...

BBC using NSA/GCHQ tools would be very very illegal.

I'll try to dig out some analysis of the claims I did when this wifi snooping was announced and some reddit people were going mental, but basically, the claims are pure nonsense and the attack method proposed has questionable legality, and only works against weak and old wifi ciphers, probably isn't precise enough to tell the difference between iplayer and youtube, and may not work at all if you are doing other things online at the same time on the machine.

Also wouldn't work if you simply use a cable.


The fact that the BBC can even make these sort of claims is scandalous.
 
Phil87;30486268 said:
I'm interested to find more info on this if you have a source, but Google seems to think it doesn't exist. Even if this did happen, how would they prove he was using the laptop, and how would anyone get hold of the laptop in the first place unless he is inviting TV licence people or police into his home and admitting everything?
Click to expand...

Just looked into it some more going directly to the first source this time and I have been partly misinformed. They did prosecute him and win and he did refuse them entry to the home and refused access to the PC. But there are no details on how they proved he was watching live TV.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ.../06.Example of non TV face sheet RED.pdf.html

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...8.Example of non TV interview record.pdf.html
 
LupoLover;30486495 said:
Agreed!

Just because a laptop was connected to that house WiFi playing TV, they cant prove who was watching it!
Click to expand...
Yet somehow they win the cases when it goes to court. How do you explain that?
 
Pottsey;30487337 said:
Yet somehow they win the cases when it goes to court. How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

If real, in those two documents you've posted the guy seems to admit an awful lot, so self incrimination is probably how they got that one through.
 
Pottsey;30487330 said:
Just looked into it some more going directly to the first source this time and I have been partly misinformed. They did prosecute him and win and he did refuse them entry to the home and refused access to the PC. But there are no details on how they proved he was watching live TV.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ.../06.Example of non TV face sheet RED.pdf.html

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...8.Example of non TV interview record.pdf.html
Click to expand...
If I'm reading that right, they took a polish person to court for allegedly viewing a non-UK streaming site on his laptop while in the UK, and they won because he never showed up to court?

It's hardly the legal battle of the century :P


LupoLover;30486495 said:
Just because a laptop was connected to that house WiFi playing TV, they cant prove who was watching it!
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums it up, despite all the scaremongering the BBC are up too ATM they will never be able to (currently) obtain sufficient evidence to prove who watched a stream over wifi or from where.
 
the_chicco;30487460 said:
I'm genuinely interested in the technical detailing and how it is proved, etc.
Click to expand...
Look at it this way, if it was actually possible to get a conviction on it, BT would currently be falling over themselves to recall/patch every router they have sent out for the past decade before they start getting sued by people who were prosecuted because openreach customers watched QI over their wifi.

And I don't see BT moving :P
 
Today there was a new envelope and a new letter. It had a second window with "Will you be in on 20th February?" in bold lettering. Inside it is the same old story, just repackaged.

Boring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom