Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
krispy89

So Bbc Thinks That Vpn = Piracy Now?

Recommended Posts

Well, according to their submission to the Australilan government regarding piracy, that is what they want you to believe.

 

http://torrentfreak.com/bbc-isps-should-assume-heavy-vpn-users-are-pirates-140908/

 

What baffles me that not only do they believe that VPN usage must equal piracy by assumption, but they also want to monitor the amount of bandwidth that you use via a VPN connection as well.

 

Are they really that daft to think that this will even work? What if you work from home via a VPN? Use encrypted communications with your company? Download and upload large files you're working on to the company servers?

 

Not to mention that they won't be able to see the content inside a VPN connection, just the size, is what really gets me, and to base that on pure assumption that you're a pirate is an absolute joke.

 

Submission is located here:

http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/OnlineCopyrightInfringement/OnlineCopyrightInfringement-BBCWorldwide.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i thought this was strange the way the article is read.

 

For instance Dr Who is release globally at 4:00 am on Sunday Morning our time and ABC is showing direct on TV.

 

Then after that it is available on IView and on TV again at 7:30pm.

 

I really think that was put up by Murdoch or some paper working for him. He was very jealous when BBC stated the Dr Who would remain on Free to Air TV.

 

Lots of lies are circulating today as tonight the forum gathers for discussion on this copyright issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK, if you want to watch TV, you need to pay a TV licence. 'It costs £145.50 for a colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence' [link]. Hard to believe there would be anyone still using a black and white TV... BBC content is produced using these licence fees, and they're also used to host iPlayer.

 

I'm not saying I agree that using a VPN is piracy, but it may explain where the 'piracy' claims come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK, if you want to watch TV, you need to pay a TV licence. 'It costs £145.50 for a colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence' [link]. Hard to believe there would be anyone still using a black and white TV... BBC content is produced using these licence fees, and they're also used to host iPlayer.

 

I'm not saying I agree that using a VPN is piracy, but it may explain where the 'piracy' claims come from.

Same thing in Norway. We pay around $250AUD a year for a TV, that money goes to cover the state sponsored TV channel NRK. I don't mind paying it.

 

In Sweden they have one for TV and one for computers because their state TV channel is available online. What a croc of shit. Norway is thinking of doing the same thing. That I don't agree with. Soon you will have to pay per smart phone. It's nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the UK, if you want to watch TV, you need to pay a TV licence...

Same thing in Norway...

 

Just to sate my curiosity, HTF is such a thing policed for broadcast signals? I can understand cable, but... If the signal strength is good enough, you can't even rely on spotting antennae from the street. (And even if you could, the resident could claim it wasn't being used.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect part of the issue for the BBC is they're an aggregator as well as a producer. If people use a VPN to access shows on iplayer that the BBC doesn't have a licence to show outside of the UK, the BBC is probably worried that they'll be liable for 'allowing' it to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to sate my curiosity, HTF is such a thing policed for broadcast signals? I can understand cable, but... If the signal strength is good enough, you can't even rely on spotting antennae from the street. (And even if you could, the resident could claim it wasn't being used.)

 

 

They use pretty interesting technology actually. In the days of CRT and no personal computers, they'd simply scan for the high frequency noise that such equipment emits. With modern tech, I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect they they send out a blast of RF on resonant frequencies, and look for returns that would indicated the presence of a TV antenna. How they determine whether the TV antenna is actually in use or not, I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV Licence inspector...

_CQI44K0QoQ

 

But on a serious note, the BBC alleging that heavy VPN usage = Piracy is just wrong.

As a quick example: What about UK residents with a TV licence using VPN to keep up with their homegrown content whilst travelling? They've paid for the content via their licence already.

 

If the BBC have a problem with people using VPN for bypassing region blocking then they need to revisit their licencing and content provision and offer other legitimate means to access that content from outside the UK. Overseas people can be paying customers if done right. Draconian measures won't stop piracy - you need to make it simpler and cost effective to just purchase the content rather than to try pirate it.


Bugger - the forums changed how youtube links are done.

 

Try this..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CQI44K0QoQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/06_june/24/licensing_detector_vans.shtml

 

 


Last year TV Licensing caught over 440,000 evaders. The technology developed especially for this new generation of vans means that evaders are even more likely to be caught.
Vanessa Wood said: "The new vans are so powerful they can tell if a TV is in use in as little as 20 seconds. And once the television is detected, the equipment - which works from up to 60 metres away - can pinpoint the actual room that the television set is in.
"However, the technology is so secret that even the engineers working on different detection systems worked in isolation – not even they know how the other detection methods work."
For the first time the detector vans will use GPS satellite technology to track down targeted addresses. This will enable TV Licensing to precisely target individual evader homes using up-to-the-minute information from its database of 28 million addresses.
TV detector vans help TV Licensing catch around 1,200 evaders every day. Anyone caught without a licence risks a trip to court and a fine of up to £1,000.

 

It is illegal to use or install television receiving equipment to receive television programme services if you are not properly licensed.

 

 

Interesting. So it would seem that they're detecting the receiver equipment, as opposed to an antenna. I'm guessing that it would be a specific clock frequency associated with decoding the incoming signal, and the detectors operate on the same principle as radar detector detectors:

 

"Radar detectors are built around a superheterodyne receiver, which has a local oscillator that radiates slightly. It is therefore possible to build a radar-detector detector, which detects such emissions (usually the frequency of the radar type being detected, plus about 10 MHz for the intermediate frequency)"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector_detector

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems strange this pops up the same time that the Forums for discussion on Piracy starts in Canberra.

 

I put my finger on Murdoch stirring the crap up so he wins the contract to show Dr. Who. As Steven Moffat said he would never allow Dr. Who to be shown on Pay TV service before Free to Air TV. This has been a Fact since Dr. Who began in the early 1960's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. So it would seem that they're detecting the receiver equipment, as opposed to an antenna. I'm guessing that it would be a specific clock frequency associated with decoding the incoming signal, and the detectors operate on the same principle as radar detector detectors:

To be pedantic: It's the other way around, radar-detector-detectors work on the same principle as these devices. Nazis were able to detect superheterodyne radios during WW2 using this technique, prompting the allies in Anzio to create crystal sets from pencils, salvaged wire and rusty razor blades.

 

Heterodyning radio receivers have existed since WW1, and so for just as long, an operating radio has been easy to detect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how they determine an LCD TV in use as a monitor compared to TV.

 

Also, I wonder if you aluminium taped the back of the TV if you'd be 'invisible'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how they determine an LCD TV in use as a monitor compared to TV.

Heterodyning isn't used for decoding VGA/DVI/Displayport. Unless the TV continually runs the tuner in the background, there'd be nothing in the appropriate RF band to detect.

 

Also, I wonder if you aluminium taped the back of the TV if you'd be 'invisible'.

There is probably still some back-EMF out through the various signal/power cables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a perfect shield.

 

Even putting yourself in a Faraday cage won't work, if you have cables leaving the cage and connecting to other stuff.

 

With a sufficiently accurate band-pass filter, and a sensitive enough antenna, any amount of power is enough to be detected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a sufficiently accurate band-pass filter, and a sensitive enough antenna, any amount of power is enough to be detected.

 

That's the trick, though, isn't? '"How good is the gear in their vans" vs "how good is my shielding"' is the real question.

 

You don't have to outrun every bear - just the one that's chasing you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is, by the time you can't be detected by vans, you also can't receive TV signals.

 

Once you open an aperture into your shielded bubble for TV signals to go in, you also open an aperture for back EMF to get out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really though? Isn't that the whole idea behind shielding.

Using total numbers at random, lets say the signal they're looking for is the good ol' 2.4GHZ frequency. (about 1cm in wavelength).

 

If your antenna cable passes through a 0.5cm hole in the cage, and is in itself, shielded all the way to the wall where it connects to the shared unit blocks antenna; how do they detect it?

 

I'd probably make an educated guess here, and say that if your antenna cable is absorbing RF from a processing chip in the decoder module, and in turn radiating it, its a very poorly built TV tuner unit, and an unshielded Coax..

 

Also, you'd have to assume for various EMI laws that this signal must be SUPER weak, and their detection (to pinpoint a unit) must be super directional. I'd imagine shielding the single street facing wall with cage would be enough.

 

I'd love to learn more about this, because the idea always fascinated me, but I never had anyone to talk it out with.

 

Does the law apply to TV tuner cards? I'd have a tiny USB one and pocket it if I got a knock :P

 

 

With a sufficiently accurate band-pass filter, and a sensitive enough antenna, any amount of power is enough to be detected.

 

That's the trick, though, isn't? '"How good is the gear in their vans" vs "how good is my shielding"' is the real question.

 

You don't have to outrun every bear - just the one that's chasing you.

 

 

Precisely.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.4GHz is more like 12cm in wavelength.

 

λ = v/f

 

I'd probably make an educated guess here, and say that if your antenna cable is absorbing RF from a processing chip in the decoder module, and in turn radiating it, its a very poorly built TV tuner unit, and an unshielded Coax..

It's not from the "processing chip in the decoder module". The source of the IF is well before that. It comes from the RF stage.

 

And it's not like it's loosely coupled through air. There is an indirect electrical connection between the local oscillator and the antenna cable, via the frontend amplifier and the mixer. The components on the signal path need to be at least partially transparent to AC, or the desired signal wouldn't get through. The exact IF figure can be known, and its amplitude is constant, so detecting the faintest signal against background noise is trivial.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, was meant to be 12; membrane work keyboards ><.

 

Even if that were the case (not arguing it's not, btw), would you really expect the antenna coax to pass it... anywhere?

Not only is it a very high resistance lead, but if it's half decent its shielded.

 

I mean, I know TV's can be build rather shodily, for example, if I have Optical Out turned on on my TV I drop from 5/5 bars reception, to 2/5 and get signal dropouts when it flickers down to 1; I'd have not expected the optical output to effect my digital reception; but there you go. 100% repeatable.

 

Anyway, I'm just finding it hard to wrap my head around.... because in the world of things like 'radar detector detectors' they require a very local Rx point (the car). But with a TV, the Rx can be shared between tens of people, and remotely mounted. Its probably just me being under educated, but surely its possible to shield untill it meets the wall, and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would you really expect the antenna coax to pass it... anywhere?

Like, back up to the antenna, and through however many intervening junction boxes? ;)

 

Not only is it a very high resistance lead, but if it's half decent its shielded.

Shielding doesn't block RF, it just attenuates it. Their van is right outside your door. They have line of sight to your antenna and your walls, they probably could build an RF heatmap and go from there.

 

Anyway, I'm just finding it hard to wrap my head around.... because in the world of things like 'radar detector detectors' they require a very local Rx point (the car). But with a TV, the Rx can be shared between tens of people, and remotely mounted. Its probably just me being under educated, but surely its possible to shield untill it meets the wall, and go from there.

And once it's in the wall?

 

Look, they probably don't do any of this. There's a lot of evidence suggesting that the fabled detection van is just a propaganda too.

 

All I'm saying is that as long as some kind of electrical signal enters or leaves a thing or a place, there's no such thing as a perfect RF seal. You can seal yourself in a faraday cage, but if there's a wire going from inside to outside, there's a path out, however attenuated it may be, co-ax or not. It's important to know this, because while it might be impractical for detecting TVs, it has implications for things like industrial espionage.

 

You're right in that there comes a point at which the effort and precision of gear you'd use to detect a signal overrides the value from catching the perpetrator. But long before that time, the level of shielding craziness required (in terms of both cost and effort) would far outweigh the cost of paying for your TV licence. It's a stupid proposition.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose it depends, huh?

It sounds like your mental picture is of a family house, where as mine is of a city block of units.

So, once it's in the wall, its impossible (well, unreasonable) to pinpoint.

 

As for the effort of shielding?

Almost as a proof of concept, or out of morbid curiosity, If I owned the unit, I'd be painting the road facing wall with ferrite paint, and if possible using fine chicken mesh behind the drywall.

The TV would get a coating in the same ferrite paint, and aluminium tape.

and see where I go from there :P

 

I enjoy 'redneck' approaches to things a lot, and if attenuating the signal is the goal; may as well have some fun with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose it depends, huh?

It sounds like your mental picture is of a family house, where as mine is of a city block of units.

So, once it's in the wall, its impossible (well, unreasonable) to pinpoint.

Remember that the authority also has a list of people that do not have licences. They'd just need to compare that address' RF profile (or unit within a complex) to those beside it and around it.

 

As for the effort of shielding?

Almost as a proof of concept, or out of morbid curiosity, If I owned the unit, I'd be painting the road facing wall with ferrite paint, and if possible using fine chicken mesh behind the drywall.

The TV would get a coating in the same ferrite paint, and aluminium tape.

and see where I go from there :P

 

I enjoy 'redneck' approaches to things a lot, and if attenuating the signal is the goal; may as well have some fun with it.

I see what you're getting at, but the fact is that it only make it more difficult to detect. There is no such thing as an RF-proof seal, as long as there's an electrical path in or out. That could be your house wiring, which has to leave your building to connect to the grid or outdoor-located generator...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to weigh in here as a data tech.

 

You can't put yourself in a faraday cage to watch TV. Faraday cages work both ways. No TV signal in = none out.

 

IF you are using an antenna, you are placing a load on the antenna. All antennas transmit. It's a tiny trace, but it's there. If an antenna is connected to a TV it generates some noise. This can be picked up.

 

Hopefully that helps answer a few questions.

 

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×