Superhub : Detector vans are back to spy on your WiFi.

[RichardCoulter]

Is this just scaremongering?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...nternet-users/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nternet-users/

The Register seems to think so:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...wi_fi_iplayer/

What do those more knowledgeable than myself regarding this matter think?

Packet sniffing does sound rather rude

[jalzoo]

I'll make sure i do a big poo before they come round they can sniff that while there at it. TV license goons.. I hate them.

[General Maximus]

duplicate thread

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/23...l#post35852688


If they are so worried about people accessing the service without paying for it then they should get rid of it altogether and make it a subscription only channel package on digital tv and then we'll see how many people think it is worth the money.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

duplicate thread

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/23...l#post35852688


If they are so worried about people accessing the service without paying for it then they should get rid of it altogether and make it a subscription only channel package on digital tv and then we'll see how many people think it is worth the money.

Thanks- I didn't know that a similar thread was in existence.

I created this thread to see if those with more knowledge of IT matters would be able to tell us if this report is likely to be true, or is simply scaremongering, as opposed to the rights and wrongs of the policy itself.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Thanks- I didn't know that a similar thread was in existence.

I created this thread to see if those with more knowledge of IT matters would be able to tell us if this report is likely to be true, or is simply scaremongering, as opposed to the rights and wrongs of the policy itself.

It's scaremongering. They can't.

[Skie]

It's a complete load of [removed] and the blurb by the NAO actually damages their reputation. They are either idiots or in on the scam, either way not a good position for them.

Mod comment - This is a family friendly forum - please refrain from inappropriate language, otherwise the infraction system may be invoked.

Doesn't matter if it''s true or not it's got you lot talking and sweating about it and quite a few will go and buy a licence off the back of it ,as they should

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by martyh

Doesn't matter if it''s true or not it's got you lot talking and sweating about it and quite a few will go and buy a licence off the back of it ,as they should

Well we're as likely to pay the BBC tax as we're likely to not use torrents.

[toonlight]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

It's scaremongering. They can't.

Well it's well known that all wifi/wireless traffic or encrypted is viewable through built in back-doors from the design stage from the manufactures /software agents for a good number of years. How do you think government recording systems/agencies like GCHQ/LEA's/CIA/FBI/NSA have been able to for years in the guise of "keeping us safe". Councils can use these same powers too if you didn't know !

You see why they (UK government) are trying to ram home this new terror ease dropping /intelligence bill through fast as they can before anyone reads what in the fine print? Oh no not so quick.... they got problems.. the 'house of lords' has flagged issues.... rewrites..... total deletion of some powers & handed back it to the common for addressing those issues plus re-submittal.

They said for a number of years you couldn't listen into personal mobile phones without ££££ equipment but look these days for £50 you can use against anyone you apply it to (person).
Do we all remember the I phone court case in the US with FBI ? They said they couldn't break the encryption... couldn't get warrant either but broke in through.... a back door malware within a installed app through illegal means.. no password needed. To add hasty not long ago you could have removed the battery from the mobile phone easy no tools needed it was dead... but wait there built in now so you can turn them totally off.... they've even got chips built in that don't need power to operate just a gps signal broadcast your location.

Yes illegal but hasn't the Government agencies been doing for ever since mobile phones have been in the general population...... I've yet to see one court case of breach of the laws that protect our own privacy against any agency or agent !

(Not a flame but a real point)
So you folks out there using wireless devices thinking how wonderful they are but all that time while your typing all your personal data, like bank details/social media (easy way to track a person habits) plus the rest think about it....... why are you giving all your data away freely & without them building a case THEN getting a court warrant...just collecting it all up right in your personal agency file ripe for use in the future........ Have real deep thought about that point... then to wonder how you can at least protect yourself by some %

Try to protect yourself by some high % by using a total wired network NOT WIRELESSeven network power plugs on a wired network using Ethernet cables has it's problem.... you wonder why base station radio operators/users hate them so much ? They broadcast a signal while transmitting data through your power sockets... with good knowledge you can pick them up. If you have right equipment like mobile phones you have no privacy even in your own home.

Be safe out there folks & think about where you transmit your personal data


---------- Post added at 21:43 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well we're as likely to pay the BBC tax as we're likely to not use torrents.

This is my point; if they do it will be explored through the court/s as the first case of using this "new" unproven technology hence they have to release all the details how it works... all the nuts + bolts & plus software to prove their case, currently if you start asking questions they drop the case unless you've stupidly signed their 178 form - you don't = no case !

I can expect a member/s of the TV licence resistance group putting in a freedom of information request to the BBC/TVL... very soon to get to the bottom of this matter.

If this happens someone will make a work-around or prove once + for all that the TV detector van doesn't exist breaking a 40 plus years of false advertising on the BBC... wait for the group high court case for compensation from the public there after.

But if the past is any thing to go by, don't hold your breath it's all hot air for more Capita TVL sales from licences as they've been dropping rapidly in the last number of years. Many will fall for it, goons having a new sale pitch to sell to the public (brainwashed fools) us LLF people out there using the new contact rule still will win hands down

Re encryption - your comments are a sub-optimal interpretation of actuality.

[Stephen]

This topic is already being discussed in two other threads. Richard already posted this in one of them.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Stephen

This topic is already being discussed in two other threads. Richard already posted this in one of them.

Where is the third one located Stephen?

[Stephen]

http://cableforum.co.uk/board/11/337...ch-page-6.html

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/23...up-page-8.html

[roughbeast]

Sounds unlikely to me. How would they detect folk who watch TV via ethernet? If they really did deploy wifi detector vans wouldn't folk just buy a bit of extra cat 5e?

I'll also warn my friend in Keffalania who uses my VPN server to watch BBC iplayer.