ASDA notify TV Licensing over Hi-Fi Purchase

adouglasmhor

There was equipment in the 6 unmarked TV detector vans burned out in one week in Northern Ireland in the 80s, It was ancient solid state gear and couldn't have found RAF Fylingdales if it was raining. How us Signals lads laughed when we formed part of the QRF to recover or destroy this "secret" equipment.

moonrakerz

TVL have admitted in a statement in Parliament that NO ONE has ever been convicted on "detector van" evidence. Two reasons for this :-

1. It is highly likely that such evidence would be classified under the same heading as telephone tapping, which needs to individually authorised at high level. TVL do not want this tested in Court.
2. The evidence from a detector van cannot be used in Court; TVL have always refused to make details of the design/operation of this "equipment" publicly available. This must be done, as it is with speed cameras, to enable the Court to be satisfied that the equipment actually does what TVL claim that it does.

Azari

moonrakerz wrote: »

TVL have admitted in a statement in Parliament that NO ONE has ever been convicted on "detector van" evidence. Two reasons for this :-

1. It is highly likely that such evidence would be classified under the same heading as telephone tapping, which needs to individually authorised at high level. TVL do not want this tested in Court.
2. The evidence from a detector van cannot be used in Court; TVL have always refused to make details of the design/operation of this "equipment" publicly available. This must be done, as it is with speed cameras, to enable the Court to be satisfied that the equipment actually does what TVL claim that it does.

Plus, as I said, they were never designed or intended to provide evidence for court.

Their purpose was to determine when and where a TV was in use to target further investigation.

moonrakerz

Azari wrote: »

Their purpose was to determine when and where a TV was in use to target further investigation.

This still falls foul of my point 1.

Just because you don't intend to use it in Court doesn't make telephone tapping legal.....................

shaun_from_Africa

1. It is highly likely that such evidence would be classified under the same heading as telephone tapping, which needs to individually authorised at high level. TVL do not want this tested in Court.

Speed camera radar detectors in cars can be detected by the police due to the fact that these detectors have electronic components that transmit a signal when they are operating. (The actual components are called "local oscillators" (LO's)
These LO transmissions are easily detectable by anyone with the correct equipment.
Televisions also have local oscillators, and it is the transmissions from these that can be detected to determine if a TV is in use in a house.

Radar detectors are not illegal to own or use in the UK as it has been determined that the signals that they receive do not contain any discernible information relating to the sender or the content of the transmission.
I'm fairly certain that the signal received by a TV detector van would be classified in the same way, as it too is simply a "by product" of the workings of an electronic device, and wouldn't therefore fall foul of the telegraphy act or DPA)

JohalaReewi

Meanwhile, back at ASDA. I had to fill in a TV form when I purchased a DVD player. The checkout person said it was because the till had told her a form was needed and if I didn't fill one in, she couldn't sell me the DVD player.

Azari

moonrakerz wrote: »

This still falls foul of my point 1.

Except that it doesn't because receiving leaking IF or LO radiation can in no way be equated to operating a telephone tap - legal or otherwise.

Just because you don't intend to use it in Court doesn't make telephone tapping legal.....................

But this has nothing to do with telephone tapping.

shaun_from_Africa

Meanwhile, back at ASDA. I had to fill in a TV form when I purchased a DVD player.

That was probably because many DVD players have a built in TV tuner so do come under the requirement for details to be taken and passed to the licencing paople.

moonrakerz

My points are being totally missed.

The fact that the LO transmits into open space is totally irrelevant, the fact that you ARE picking up this signal and intend to use it elsewhere is relevant.
The "by product" signal cannot be used for other purposes, doubly so when the person gathering this signal will not disclose what equipment he is using.
A policeman cannot say in Court, "I know he Murdered Mr Smith" - he has to prove it. Just as TVL cannot say in Court "he was watching without a licence, but we are not going to tell you how we know"


The "proof of the pudding is in the eating" - TVL have never used detector evidence in Court - FACT !
(Read Hansard if you don't believe me ! AND - there is also a statement from the BBC's Legal Office to the same effect - which the Beeb tried to suppress following an FOI Act request)

shaun_from_Africa

The fact that the LO transmits into open space is totally irrelevant, the fact that you ARE picking up this signal and intend to use it elsewhere is relevant.

I totally disagree.
Simply picking up a signal is not enough to make it illegal.
the signal must contain discernible information before it can be classed as evesdropping.
It was for this reason I mentioned radar detectors and how the law interprets the information that they receive.

"A judgement of the Queens Bench Divisional Court dated 29th January 1998 makes it clear that the use of Radar Detectors is not unlawful as has hitherto been claimed by some. In the past a few prosecutions have been brought by claiming the use of radar detectors was contrary to section 5(b)(I) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 as amended by section 3 of the Post Office Act 1969. However the Acts refer to the interception of wireless communications for the purpose of obtaining information as to the content, sender or addressee of any message. The Court concluded that the radar transmission was not communicating a 'message' and therefore equipment designed to detect the presence of the transmission could not decode any such message. It was further stated that section 1(1) of the Act, which requires a licence for the reception of radio signals, has been superseded by the Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers)(Exemption) Regulations (SI 1989 No123) which exempts radar detectors and similar equipment from the need for such licences."

The signals given out by a TV do not contain any information, and are therefore not covered by any of the requirements of the telegraphy act.

TVL have never used detector evidence in Court - FACT !

But have they ever used TV detector van evidence in order to obtain a court order allowing a building to be searched?

there is also a statement from the BBC's Legal Office to the same effect

Could you post a link to this as I would like to study exactly what they stated.