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.

The Telegraph can disclose that from next month, the BBC vans will fan out across the country capturing information from private Wi-Fi networks in homes to “sniff out” those who have not paid the licence fee.

The corporation has been given legal dispensation to use the new technology, which is typically only available to crime-fighting agencies, to enforce the new requirement that people watching BBC programmes via the iPlayer must have a TV licence.
"Detection vans can identify viewing on a non-TV device in the same way that they can detect viewing on a television set"Sir Amyas Morse, National Audit Office

The disclosure will lead to fears about invasion of privacy and follows years of concern over the heavy-handed approach of the BBC towards those suspected of not paying the licence fee. However, the BBC insists that its inspectors will not be able to spy on other internet browsing habits of viewers.

The existence of the new strategy emerged in a report carried out by the National Audit Office (NAO).

It shows that TV Licensing, the corporation’s licence-fee collection arm, has developed techniques to track those watching television on laptops, tablets, and mobile phones.

The disclosure of the controversial new snooping technique will lay to rest the persistent claims that detector vans are no more than an urban myth designed to intimidate the public into paying the licence fee.


Sir Amyas Morse, the comptroller and auditor general of the NAO, writes in the report: “Detection vans can identify viewing on a non-TV device in the same way that they can detect viewing on a television set.

“BBC staff were able to demonstrate this to my staff in controlled conditions sufficient for us to be confident that they could detect viewing on a range of non-TV devices.”

Currently, 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.

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the corporation is entitled to carry out surveillance of suspected licence-fee dodgers.

The BBC confirmed that its newly developed detection techniques had been authorised under the legislation.
BBC licence in numbers

While the corporation would not disclose how the new technology works, the report states that the BBC has ruled out combing its own records of computers that have logged into the iPlayer website to hunt down non-paying viewers.

Sir Amyas writes in the document: “The BBC rightly acknowledges that this would be an inappropriate invasion of privacy.”

Instead, electrical engineering experts said that the most likely explanation for how the BBC would carry out its surveillance was a technique known as “packet sniffing”, which involves watching traffic passing over a wireless internet network without hacking into the connection or breaking its encryption.

Researchers at University College London disclosed that they had used a laptop running freely available software to identify Skype internet phone calls passing over encrypted Wi-Fi, without needing to crack the network password.


Dr Miguel Rio, a computer network expert who helped to oversee the doctoral thesis, said that licence-fee inspectors could sit outside a property and view encrypted “packets” of data – such as their size and the frequency with which they are emitted over the network – travelling over a home Wi-Fi network.

This would allow them to establish if devices at homes without television licences were indeed accessing BBC programmes online.
"We’ve caught people watching on a range of devices, but don’t give details of detection as we would not want to reveal information helpful to evaders"TV Licensing

Dr Rio said: “They actually don’t need to decrypt traffic, because they can already see the packets. They have control over the iPlayer, so they could 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.”

Privacy campaigners described the developments as “creepy and worrying”.

A spokesman for Privacy International, the human rights watchdog, said: “While TV Licensing have long been able to examine the electromagnetic spectrum to watch for and investigate incorrect usage of their services, the revelation that they are potentially developing technology to monitor home Wi-Fi networks is startlingly invasive.”

A spokesman for TV Licensing said: “We’ve caught people watching on a range of devices, but don’t give details of detection as we would not want to reveal information helpful to evaders.

“Our use of detection is regularly inspected by independent regulators.”

The broadcaster included the NAO report in a list of documents that it claimed to have published alongside its annual report last month, but never distributed the review or uploaded it to its website. It has now been placed online by the public spending watchdog.

 Yodhrin wrote:
It's also a tad disturbing(again, assuming it's actually real and not a slightly pathetic attempt at propaganda) because the government is apparently going to give these vans leave to go around the country observing people's internet usage without any regard for privacy, the presumption of innocence, nor any need for legal oversight or pre-approval.

What exactly is there to prevent someone dishonest manning these vehicles from doing more than just passively observing packets looking for a specific pattern that would indicate you watching iPlayer?

These guys aren't going to undergo any particularly rigorous screening process, and even setting aside the possibility of them being used for criminal activity the private companies subcontracted by the BBC to actually handle license enforcement have employed many people that I'm entirely comfortable referring to as "barely-human scum" - if they're willing to illegally question children without the presence of a guardian or flat-out lie about their inspections in order to hit their quotas(they must "catch" a certain number of "offenders" each week or be sacked), are they really going to be above fabricating positive results on this new "test"?

Analysis The BBC's creepy detector vans will be dragged into the 21st century to sniff Brits' home Wi-Fi networks, claims the UK Daily Telegraph's Saturday splash.

From September 1, you'll need a telly licence if you stream catch-up or on-demand TV from the BBC's iPlayer service, regardless if you've got a television set or not – phone, computer, potato, whatever, you'll have to cough up.

In preparation for this, allegedly, the Beeb's heavies are going to drive vans around Blighty's streets with gear that will spy on people's wireless networks to make sure they're not streaming iPlayer without a licence. Assuming this is true, and another sign that Britain is nothing more than a parody dystopian state, how exactly is this going to work?

Well, there are a number of options. The most sane, and we use that term loosely, is: the BBC TV licensing enforcers – aka Capita Business Services – will park outside homes that aren't paying a telly tax and record packets transmitted on Wi-Fi frequencies. If these packets, even if they are encrypted as they should be with WPA2 or whatever, match the size and pattern of iPlayer video packets, then presumably you'll start getting angry letters demanding £145.50, doorsteppings and potentially prosecution and fines.

It turns out the Tele's article today was triggered by a National Audit Office report from March that was published in mid-July. Written by Auditor General Sir Amyas Morse, it doesn't reveal exactly how the iPlayer viewing detection will work. In fact, it doesn't reveal much at all on the subject.

Let's break down the newspaper's article paragraph by paragraph:

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.

Strong start. Sounds like we're onto a winner, here.

The Telegraph can disclose that from next month, the BBC vans will fan out across the country capturing information from private Wi-Fi networks in homes to “sniff out” those who have not paid the licence fee.

Ah, those good old sinister detector vans – you know, the ones that claimed to be able to reliably sense through brick walls potentially ten or more yards away if you were watching your telly or not, when a knock at the door or a peek through the letterbox would work just as well.

More importantly, it's made clear we're talking about "capturing information" from people's wireless networks.

The corporation has been given legal dispensation to use the new technology, which is typically only available to crime-fighting agencies.

This is a very cute way of saying the broadcaster has been allowed to use the UK's scattergun antiterror laws to snoop on you.

The BBC insists that its inspectors will not be able to spy on other internet browsing habits of viewers.

If this is true, then we're probably not talking about Capita's goons cracking your encrypted private Wi-Fi and reading the contents of your packets.

It's possible, of course, that their equipment attempts to decrypt the packets, if necessary, and studies their contents for evidence of iPlayer traffic and reports simply a yes or a no. Technically, the inspectors will not pry into people's personal lives, but the capability and potential for abuse is there, if so. That would be ridiculous, though.

The existence of the new strategy emerged in a report carried out by the National Audit Office (NAO). It shows that TV Licensing, the corporation’s licence-fee collection arm, has developed techniques to track those watching television on laptops, tablets, and mobile phones.

No, we'll tell you what the Sir Amyas's report [PDF] actually says. It says this:

"Where the BBC suspects that an occupier is watching live television but not paying for a licence, it can send a detection van to check whether this is the case. Detection vans can identify viewing on a non‐TV device in the same way that they can detect viewing on a television set. BBC staff were able to demonstrate this to my staff in controlled conditions sufficient for us to be confident that they could detect viewing on a range of non‐TV devices."

Two important things to note. First, the Telegraph omitted the first sentence of that crucial passage from its front-page article. The emphasis in the government report is on live TV, but the Telegraph obsesses about the on-demand aspect of iPlayer.

The Wi-Fi sniffing technology demonstrated by the Beeb's geeks to the UK government auditors focuses on live iPlayer streaming, yet the Telegraph's article concentrates on catch-up viewing. Whatever was shown to Sir Amyas only applies to live TV, yet today's news is about a crackdown on catch-up viewing. The technology to snare on-demand viewers of iPlayer via Wi-Fi snooping may well not exist.

Second, the government report – a crucial component to the Telegraph's page-one article – is more vague than a teenager mumbling about their Friday night to a parent.

How exactly does identifying a TV set receiving a signal work "in the same way" as identifying iPlayer real-time video wrapped in potentially encrypted IEEE 802.11 frames? Unless, of course, you're massively oversimplifying the technology, like saying a jet engine works "in the same way" as a ten quid hairdryer. Moving air, heat, there's a spinning thing, you know, something like that.

So no, the report doesn't show that TV Licensing has developed techniques to track iPlayer streamers. It doesn't show anything. We just have to take the Telegraph's word that Capita is monitoring people's wireless packets.

The disclosure of the controversial new snooping technique will lay to rest the persistent claims that detector vans are no more than an urban myth designed to intimidate the public into paying the licence fee.

Oh my God.

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the corporation is entitled to carry out surveillance of suspected licence-fee dodgers. The BBC confirmed that its newly developed detection techniques had been authorised under the legislation.

Told you so. RIPA, an antiterror law. RIPA should just drop the terror bit and be called the anti law. If you're anti-something, you're probably breaking RIPA.

While the corporation would not disclose how the new technology works...

Convenient.

...the report states that the BBC has ruled out combing its own records of computers that have logged into the iPlayer website to hunt down non-paying viewers. Sir Amyas writes in the document: "The BBC rightly acknowledges that this would be an inappropriate invasion of privacy."

Right, so inspecting web server logs: no good; capturing people's Wi-Fi packets in their own homes: fair play, we're told.

Fine, let's be fair, let's turn down the snark here a little. The BBC can't really take a list of all the unique IP addresses accessing iPlayer and ask all the ISPs for all the corresponding home addresses of their subscribers so the Beeb can check to see if they've all paid their TV licences.

It's not practical. Invasion of privacy doesn't even come into it – it's easier to crack down on telly fee dodgers the other way around: look at who hasn't paid up and send them scary letters, and then send round the scary vans with the scary powers that no one can explain, and tell them to cough up. It works surprisingly well.

Also, if the BBC is wringing its hands so tightly about invasions of privacy, presumably that rules out the detector vans decrypting people's private Wi-Fi networks, or peering into public ones. In which case, how else is this detection going to work?

Dr Miguel Rio, a computer network expert ... said that licence-fee inspectors could sit outside a property and view encrypted “packets” of data – such as their size and the frequency with which they are emitted over the network – travelling over a home Wi-Fi network.

Finally, here's the crunch. They could be scrutinizing the size and transmission rate of data to look for patterns of iPlayer use. We've now downgraded from "deploying a new generation of Wi-Fi detection vans" to an academic's best guess.

If it is true that TV Licensing is going to study people's IP packets, we hope the enforcers – and their lawyers – realize so many other types of traffic could look like iPlayer streams: a video from another website, perhaps.

To be most effective with this technique, you'd have to monitor the data flowing into someone's house at the ISP level and then see if it corresponds to what goes out over the air from the wireless router, and at that point – why bother looking at the Wi-Fi? Look down at your hands. You've just tapped their broadband. You've got everything you need at that point. Is that a step too far? Is that the line crossed for invasion of privacy? Can't tap someone's DSL but you can point an antenna at their living room window?

It is possible to observe in real-time the packets in the air on someone's private wireless network and compare that to the packets streaming from a live iPlayer source: if they match then perhaps someone in the snooped-on household is streaming iPlayer live right there and then. But the new rules crack down on catch-up iPlayer that's viewed on demand where the user ultimately controls the packets. There is no way of predicting what is being streaming, and the Wi-Fi snooping technology shown to government auditors only affects live video.

The auditors, and presumably the Telegraph, were told the BBC's enforcers can identify iPlayer streaming, but really, they can at best identify live streaming. The rules that kick in from September affect people who stream on-demand video, a completely different beast. If you stream catch-up TV, there's a good chance the detector vans, if they even exist, can't work out what you're doing.
And more technical headaches

Also, what happens when you change the MTU on your network? Riddle me that, Sir Amyas.

We've got two more words for you: Ethernet. Cables. What are you going to do about TVs physically wired into their routers?

Privacy campaigners described the developments as “creepy and worrying”

Oh, don't worry about it. It's another round of mysterious inexplicable technology to terrify you into paying. Which you should, by the way – it costs money, lots of money, to pay actors, writers, producers, directors, crews, lawyers and executives to make things that people enjoy.

Just spare us the scare tactics and the hocus pocus. ®

malamis wrote:
Since the cost of this endeavor has to be some 40 times what it would be to just mail out 60 million (~) personal access codes to iplayer with the requisite software adjustments (Catalyst, which the thing is built on has a 'make secure access easy' module which you literally just plug in one line) with the tv licensing renewal and insist on using them when viewing (allowing foreign people to enjoy iplayer legitimately as well), I'm putting money down now that it's a cover for the machinations of the lizardman oligarchy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
It's also a tad disturbing(again, assuming it's actually real and not a slightly pathetic attempt at propaganda) because the government is apparently going to give these vans leave to go around the country observing people's internet usage without any regard for privacy, the presumption of innocence, nor any need for legal oversight or pre-approval.

How exactly is it a privacy violation? You're broadcasting the signal outside of your house, and the BBC isn't breaking your passwords or anything. If you have a password-protected network (and if you don't you have no right to complain) the only information anyone is going to get is whether or not you're broadcasting the trace signal. This is like complaining that the police smelled the pot you're smoking from outside on the street and decided to come knock on your door and investigate.

What exactly is there to prevent someone dishonest manning these vehicles from doing more than just passively observing packets looking for a specific pattern that would indicate you watching iPlayer?

The fact that breaking into your network would require committing a crime from a computer that their employer can monitor with a trivial amount of effort. If someone wants to do more than mass-search for a specific signal broadcast then they don't need to screw around with a company van, they can just drive up to your house and hack your network from a laptop in their car. Nothing in the proposed search method makes this at all easier.

These guys aren't going to undergo any particularly rigorous screening process, and even setting aside the possibility of them being used for criminal activity the private companies subcontracted by the BBC to actually handle license enforcement have employed many people that I'm entirely comfortable referring to as "barely-human scum" - if they're willing to illegally question children without the presence of a guardian or flat-out lie about their inspections in order to hit their quotas(they must "catch" a certain number of "offenders" each week or be sacked), are they really going to be above fabricating positive results on this new "test"?

This is an issue, but what does it have to do with the detection method? If the "barely-human scum" are willing to fake test results then why does it matter what test they're using? It sounds like your system is broken and needs some accountability, but the detection vans aren't part of that problem.

Currently, 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.

BBC iPlayer logo
The law is changing.
From 1 September 2016 you will need to be covered by a TV Licence to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer. This applies to any device and provider you use.
Don't forget, you still need a TV Licence to watch or record programmes on any channel as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service.
So, if you already have a TV Licence on 1 September, you’re already covered.

What does 'on demand' mean?
Any programme you download or watch that is not being shown as live TV, including catch-up TV. These programmes can be accessed on a website or through an app on a smart TV, digital box or any other device. On demand also includes exclusive programmes that are only available online.

Will I need a TV Licence for all on demand programmes?
You will need to be covered by a licence to download or watch BBC programmes on demand – including catch-up TV – on BBC iPlayer. There will be just two exceptions – watching S4C TV on demand and listening to radio. There may be other exceptions in the future.
You will need a licence to:
(1) Download or watch BBC programmes on demand – including catch-up TV – on BBC iPlayer, no matter what device you use.
(2) Access BBC iPlayer through any other provider.
(3) Watch or record programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service – on any channel.

You won't need a licence to:
(1) Download or watch S4C TV on demand on BBC iPlayer or listen to radio on BBC iPlayer.
(2) Download or watch programmes on demand from other providers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back in 2007 I moved out of my flat in Richmond but did not sell it for over a year because of the looming Global Triumph of Capitalism (or the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, as some people call it.)

As I left the flat empty and unfurnished I did not have a TV, so I did not renew my licence.

Nevertheless, the TV Licensing people sent me a series of admonitory letters to try and make me renew. I found it very difficult to inform them that I did not need a licence, so in the end I just ignored it. I don't know if they sent people round, but if they wasted their money in this way it was their own fault for setting up a system that made it so hard to tell them if you cease to need a licence.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It's like they want pirates

 Yodhrin wrote:
Because if it works as implied(which, again, requires us to make charitable assumptions about the Beeb's honestly, but for the sake of argument...), it doesn't discriminate, it doesn't only "smell the pot", it passively captures all of your packets and analyses them, meaning that data will be stored and likely end up in some GCHQ data facility somewhere being analysed by real software for illicit(not necessarily illegal) behaviour, and depending on how the technology works(again, assuming it does) it could be storing copies of the encrypted packets themselves, which would enable the police and security services to use these vans to spy on someone's internet connection without requiring any warrant or oversight. And before anyone starts making sarcy comments about tinfoil hats, RIPA is a stupendously overreaching piece of legislation that functionally eliminates privacy rights once an agency has been granted leave to use its powers, and there is presently an even more intrusive bill going through parliament.

Really? Nothing at all about driving a legally sanctioned official vehicle tasked specifically with observing people's networks would make it easier to hack people's home networks than if you were some shady guy sitting outside people's houses in your car with a laptop? Nothing about a vehicle that would presumably not just have more substantial raw computational power than a common laptop but also substantial additional data storage capacity and specialist software?

As for employers monitoring, that's cute - even if you assume such a process would function properly(and I don't know why you would, oversight never seems to work properly in these private-sector vultures who hover around public services hoovering up taxpayer money), the idea it wouldn't be easily defeated by the type of person capable of exploiting access to one of these vans for nefarious ends just doesn't fly. Ask a sysadmin how easy it is to prevent unauthorised use of a system if the user is already inside it and knows what they're doing.

This technology(again, assuming it exists) allows them to skip that whole process entirely and just jump right to the stage where they claim you're an "offender" and take you to court(where they count on the fact you have to pay £100 to lodge your defence to ensure most of the people they target, who I'm sure entirely coincidentally tend to be low-income working class or people on benefits either unemployment or disability, will ensure most such cases are dealt with by summary judgements that simply assume your guilt and award the prosecution a victory as if they'd actually proven their case).

must have a TV licence.

 Breotan wrote:
It boggles my mind that this is actually a thing.

 Orlanth wrote:

--snip--
I don't use BBC iplayer, but is the app specific. Could I end up been deeplinked to it by accident?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Always remember that BBC licence inspectors have to

a) catch you in the act of watching live broadcast

b) have no legal right to enter your property

Keep those two things in mind, and you'll be fine...

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Always remember that BBC licence inspectors have to

a) catch you in the act of watching live broadcast

b) have no legal right to enter your property

Keep those two things in mind, and you'll be fine...

Incidentally Finland used to have system like that.

Because that didn't get them enough money guess where system ended up with? Everybody pays tax. Whether you watch it or not. Whether you own TV or not! I haven't watched tv at all for like 2 years except glimpses at the gym and I pay about 200e per year for that...

Just hope you don't end up in similar situation...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
It boggles my mind that this is actually a thing.

Why? It makes sense, if you're going to have state-funded TV why not impose the tax only on people who have the ability to watch TV? It's just a bit odd that it's called a "license" instead of a "tax", but the concept is fine.

 jmurph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Always remember that BBC licence inspectors have to

a) catch you in the act of watching live broadcast

b) have no legal right to enter your property

Keep those two things in mind, and you'll be fine...

Incidentally Finland used to have system like that.

Because that didn't get them enough money guess where system ended up with? Everybody pays tax. Whether you watch it or not. Whether you own TV or not! I haven't watched tv at all for like 2 years except glimpses at the gym and I pay about 200e per year for that...

Just hope you don't end up in similar situation...

Realistically, I think that's the only way to do it. Public service available at public expense. Don't use it? Good for you. My guess is the expense in encryption, enforcement, etc. isn't even remotely worth it. Note that public schools work exactly the same way- you pay for them even if you are not in school or have children in school.

They could always put it to a vote- everyone pays, or cancel non-emergency service.

 jmurph wrote:


Realistically, I think that's the only way to do it. Public service available at public expense. Don't use it? Good for you. My guess is the expense in encryption, enforcement, etc. isn't even remotely worth it. Note that public schools work exactly the same way- you pay for them even if you are not in school or have children in school.

They could always put it to a vote- everyone pays, or cancel non-emergency service.