• Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      TV detection vans are real but they aren’t high tech. Some people think they have fancy antennas that can detect your TV. Other people think it’s all a bluff and the antennas on the roof of the van are fake just for show.

      The truth is much simpler. The antennas on the top of the van are real, but they just receive regular TV broadcasts. The technician watches TV in the back of the van. They also point a parabolic microphone at your window so they can hear what’s happening inside the house.

      If there’s a TV playing in the house, the technician flips through TV channels to see if they can synch up the mic audio with the broadcast audio. If they record a perfect match, that’s sufficient to prove that you’re watching broadcast TV, not just a recording, VHS, DVD, or streaming service.

        • Agent641@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          Probably, yeah. You would probably sell a bunch of them. This isn’t the only method they use, they look through windows from the street, knock on doors etc, but it would help cut down on tv licensing van hits

      • rollerbang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        And that’s a legal tactic? That’s basically spying on people and what they do in their houses.

        • Hupf@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          Also how does this hold up in court if the only “evidence” is presented by people who are in a conflict of interest and can easily falsify it (point the microphone at a prepared tv / different house)?

          • rollerbang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            I’m guessing that’s the reason they’re pressing to to in and inspect. Even though at the end they didn’t go. So they weren’t justified at all.

            They’re just pressing so that people cave in and think "well they must be in the right, they have the law (policeman) on their side.

            I seriously doubt that they’ve ended up suing the guy.

        • Agent641@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          If you think that’s bad, look up TV licensing goons on YouTube and watch them forcing their way into houses in Britain with warrants and cops:

          https://youtu.be/g-Fn4BiHekk

          Welcome to Britain, where the laws are made up and your rights don’t matter

          • rollerbang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            I actually remember seeing this before. But if not a warrant, what did they have then? Just a pretend paper? Because if it was an actual warrant, they would have gone in?

            • Agent641@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 days ago

              It’s a real warrant, signed by a justice of the peace, and legally enforceable. They could have forced their way inside. They just have a policy not to do that if it comes to it because it’s very bad publicity for TV licensing, so they withdrew. But by refusing to comply with the warrant, the person filming is actually committing obstruction of justice, which carries a much greater fine than just watching TV broadcast without a license. So he’ll probably get a summons for that too.