Request about "Detection" -> BBC default refusal to provide information.

They won't provide honest responses, because it would confirm what a crock their detection capabilities really are.

The execution of a TV Licensing search warrant is such a hideous Gestapo-style breach of personal privacy that I'm utterly astounded that the rights and freedoms of the victims are not protected by affording them the opportunity to put their side across as part of the application process.

Even more astonishing when considering that the content of these applications is submitted by commission-based agents of a debt collection company of mixed repute, earning cash for convictions.

I find the thought of these agents tripping over personal items and rummaging around in kids' bedrooms completely abhorrent and it amazes me that public funds are frittered on police attendance.

Hi Peter,

What concerns me is not the detailed particulars of detection technology, but the thought that their policy of tight-lippedness leads to JPs/Magistrates being fooled into believing that reasonable suspicion of evasion exists and signing warrants on that basis- hence the thrust of this request which, I should hope, bears enough extra merit as far as public interest is concerned to warrant an honest answer where other different requests have previously been denied.

Here's part of an actual submission which obtained a search warrant:

>> Begins:

5 A television display generates light at specific frequencies. Some of that light escapes through windows usually after being reflected from one or more walls of the room in which the television is situated. The optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light levels into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed. If a receiver is being used to watch broadcast programmes then a positive reading is returned. The device gives a confidence factor in percentage terms, which is determined by the strength of the signal received by the detection equipment and confirms whether or not the source of the signal is a "possible broadcast".

6 On the 31st March 2011 at 18.36 hours the detector van was positioned near the Premises. When the detector camera was pointed at the window of the Premises a positive signal was received indicating a TV receiver was in use receiving a possible broadcast with a confidence factor of 97%. A television aerial and a satellite dish was also seen affixed to the Premises.

Ends >>

Besides clearly stating that the detector is a camera, the rest is such blatantly pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo (e.g. "A television display generates light at specific frequencies" = "A television displays coloured pictures") that magistrates have to receive special "Court Training Sessions" thoughtfully provided by the BBC's PR people to keep them on side. See

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

though the bits you're interested in have been redacted "in the interests of law enforcement". Of course, the BBC has little interest in the Law when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You should probably add Watchkeeper that the "victim" of that particular search, who was "detected" by TV Licensing, was found NOT GUILTY in court, because the search uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing.

Draw your own conclusions from that one, others who are reading this.

My word, what a bombshell! So search warrants are applied for based on woolly science that, at best, may show a TV is on, but clearly has no way of discerning what is being watched- DVDs or otherwise. This submission, with its 97% certainty claim that live programming is being watched is a classic example of 'sexed up'. Laughable were it not in support of an application to trample on someone's rights by searching their home in the hope of finding something incriminating.

The added mention of aerials or satellites being included as evidence appears to be a desperate attempt to bump up a bogus 97% a touch higher in the mind of JP's/Magistrates. Obviously people generally don't bother to take this equipment with them when they move, so almost all but the most recently built houses will have an aerial.

Is being untruthful in a Search Warrant application unlawful?
Are the BBC > JP training courses in the public domain?

Scratch that last question on training courses- I jumped the gun and now have it.

The BBC don't advertise them as training courses, but their is little doubt that TV Licensing use their "information sessions" to indoctrinate JPs into their way of thinking.

Yes, the BBC screams & shouts about those that break the law because they have no TVL, but are very reluctant to properly comply with the FOI act - what gives with these double standards BBC?

Mr Jones, you're quite right to point out that the householder was found not guilty. Further, the house was empty when the "evidence" was collected!

Full story here:

http://tinyurl.com/mmnr6o4

Also, the BBC (which bears ultimate responsibility for all TV licensing activities) definitely DOES refer, or at least HAS referred, to "Court Training Sessions". See the image on this post:

http://tinyurl.com/clflvh8

TVL: "Every old TV & radio is also a transmitter!!!. This was the signal used to detect if a TV was in use. With the advent of digital TV they now use a light spectrum analyser. Every TV broadcasts (shines) a very specific range of colours (frequencies) from the screen."
-------------------------------
Q: “Can it even work out which channel they’re watching?”

TVL: “It doesn’t tell us what they’re watching but it tells us which room they’re watching it in, and we can tell that in as little as 20 seconds.”
--------------------------------

So there it is. Technology that cannot tell what you are watching, even if it's DVD's, catchup, video games or an old wedding video.

But with clever wording Capita still use it to dupe non-technically minded magistrates into signing Search Warrants.

The first thing a magistrate should check is whether the BBC has followed the procedures laid down in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001.

Detection apparatus cannot be deployed willy-nilly, and pictures of PR people waving green "magic wands" around are, quite frankly, ludicrous. They are also deliberately misleading - but that's the BBC for you.

http://tinyurl.com/aofz98n

"As your requests relate to how our detection equipment works ..."

Not so, and obviously not so. Question 1 is "can the equipment distinguish between live broadcast reception and other uses?" Answering the question "can it?" need not divulge HOW the equipment can so distinguish, only WHETHER it can - either yes or no. For example, a machine is able to sort seeds by colour. Discoloured seeds are removed from the seed stream automatically. By saying this (and it's a real example) the fact that the equipment CAN distinguish seed colour is affirmed but HOW the equipment works is not stated.

Question 2 is "are magistrates made aware of limitations?" Again, no details of HOW the equipment works is required as the answer can be a simple yes or no.

Once again the BBC turns down an opportunity to explain just how effective its "detection" is. Once again the BBC informs us that if it did explain how detection works, that information would be of use in evading licence fee payment. This can only be so if detection is ineffective. If detection WAS effective, disclosing that information would be of no use at all to a potential evader. Rather, it would discourage evasion. It's simple logic, really.

I like the cut of your jib DW.
There is no doubt that there are often "strange goings-on" with how TV Licensing "gather" their evidence.
The link that you say leads to a "perjurious and misleading Section 366 Search Warrant application" doesn't appear to.

Hi Peter and thanks!

The link works for me. It should take you to a MoJ FOI request on the same topic.

DW: You don't believe everything TV Licensing's PR people say when they're promoting funding of the BBC on a BBC radio station?

There is a chance that Mark Whitehouse - in common with a lot of TV Licensing people - doesn't actually know what he's on about!

Hi Peter,

Thank you for liking the cut of my jib.

The refusal to divulge detection capability, coupled with the use of the phrase 'possible broadcast' in the Heather SW affidavit, leads me to believe Whitehouse's admission that their detectors are unable to ascertain what is being watched on a TV absent the TV screen itself being visible.

Go to the ICO. It's the only thing they understand. They'd give insincere canned responses all day if they thought they could get away with it!

See here: http://www.ico.org.uk/complaints/getting/

Download the complaint form here, fill it in (2 mins work) and then email it to the ICO: http://www.ico.org.uk/complaints/getting...