Television Detector Vans?
Darrell
Does anyone know of a link where I could find information on TV detection
eqpt?
The reason I'm asking is due to a recent discussion that took place on
another NG, on the secure, closed-circuit television system that was used
for Mr. Clintons grand jury testimony. I posed the question whether it was
possible to use this device to intercept a signal at either end. North
americans don't have much experience with the eqpt used to detect
unlicensed TV reception, but I know it is used in the U.K., and recall
seeing a bright-yellow Bundespost van while I was posted in Germany that
could have been used for the same purpose. I know there is a knowledgable
person out there who can satisfy my curiousity. . . .
Darrell
Brian Gaff
the tunar local oscilator for which channel is being viewed
ad=frer first finding the timebase signal. Unfortunately with so
many tvs, videos, computers and sat and cable now too, finding
unlicenced sets has become almost impossible!
As for actually resolving a pictire... I doubt it. Getting the
audio though is another matter, it depends how this is sent.
Of course all this is academic as I would hope the whole thing
was encrypted.
Brian
--
bri...@bgserv.demon.co.uk
Brian Gaff AKA B G Services - Still supporting Z80
The Spectrum Emulator
Duncan Hawkins
Years ago they actually identified the output from the local
oscillators in the TV's, but now they have a computer generated list
of addresses that are not subscribing to TV, and those who have been
subscribing and defaulted with payments.
Duncan
E17
Marc
actually receive the radiation given off by the tube and that the
authorities were concerned that they wouldn't be able to trace signals from
PCs with TV tuner cards and low radiation monitors and also from flat screen
TVs.
I'd always assumed that they worked on the local oscillator signal but
apparently not.
So it's possible that the TVDV equipment could have been used to eavesdrop
the testimony.
Regards
Marc
marc.b...@hotmail.com
Remove the first dot to reply by mail
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mbarbour
ICQ 5113432
Darrell wrote in message <01bdcb11$44080220$8c6aa1cf@markspac>...
Jim Dunnett
Hawkins) wrote:
>Years ago they actually identified the output from the local
>oscillators in the TV's, but now they have a computer generated list
>of addresses that are not subscribing to TV, and those who have been
>subscribing and defaulted with payments.
That's a much easier way of clobbering the scroungers!
--
- Jim, g4rga | Je me presse de rire de tout,
olympus@jimdee%prestel.co.uk | de peur d'être obligé d'en
g4rga%aol.com | pleurer.
g4rga@gb7tjf.#45.gbr.eu |
| -- Beaumarchais 1732-1799.
Rallies info: www2.prestel.co.uk/jimdee
C Moss
>I've read a couple of articles recently that stated that TV detector vans
>actually receive the radiation given off by the tube and that the
>authorities were concerned that they wouldn't be able to trace signals from
>PCs with TV tuner cards and low radiation monitors and also from flat screen
>TVs.
>
>I'd always assumed that they worked on the local oscillator signal but
>apparently not.
>
>So it's possible that the TVDV equipment could have been used to eavesdrop
>the testimony.
That's how they do it.
The technology has been around for a few years now that allows you to
see exactly what there see'ing on there monitor or TV set, the only
difference is the line/frame rate which is no problem to sync too if
you have a frame store & the required hardware/software etc.
Get yourself a 200mhz (give or take a 100mhz) TV receiver & stick a
small beam on it (2 or 3 elements) , you'll fine you can rx unsync'ed
images from cathode ray tubes by pointing the beam at the selected
monitor/tv tube. What frequency they use now i don't know.
I personally couldn't give a sod what the simple minded 'authorities'
are doing with there lives :-)
GAM EYE
authorities that transaction has occurred, and it is added to database.
Darrell
Darrell
Darrell <gibr...@mark.com> wrote in article
<01bdcb11$44080220$8c6aa1cf@markspac>...
: Hello,
:
: Does anyone know of a link where I could find information on TV detection
: eqpt?
: The reason I'm asking is due to a recent discussion that took place on
:
Charles Brain
>
> So it's possible that the TVDV equipment could have been used to eavesdrop
> the testimony.
>
It is almost certain that the monitor would be a Tempest one, so I very much
doubt it.
- Charles
Murray Taylor
gam...@aol.com (GAM EYE) wrote:
I was told (many years ago) the TV detector vans didn't actually work, but
that their appearance in a given area caused an increase in the number of
applications for TV licenses!.
Anyone know the real story ?
Regards,
Murray N Taylor
mnta...@cix.co.uk
Jclefever
("Murray Taylor") writes:
>
>I was told (many years ago) the TV detector vans didn't actually work, but
>that their appearance in a given area caused an increase in the number of
>applications for TV licenses!.
>
Yes thats true.
I was in the Norwich area some time ago, taking a break in a burger van layby.
(as you do :-)) There was a TV detector van there. I went up to the guy in the
van nad asked him if I could sse his equipment (as yolu do :-)) and he sais it
was a dummy van and they pay him just to drive around!
Jerry Lefever
V.D.G. for Graphics/poster/large format printing,.exhibition graphics, panels,
posters. We can print from disk. See us at
http://members.aol.com/printbig2/3.htm
JIM SEWELL
pre-recorded video tapes, therefor if you detune your telly and those old
gits come knocking on your door, you do the following...
First line of defence is "sorry you cant come in, the wife is naked in front
of the telly"
Secondly, when the old git says "so you are watching the Tv with no
licence", you say, no we're watching the Guns of Naverone....Its
pre-recorded.....
Thirdly, he'll go away most upset that you did'nt let him in, that he'll
come back a few days later with a search warrant and a man dressed in a
fancy dress costume, insisting on coming in.....
By this third stage make sure that you de-tune the telly and only tune it in
when there's something good on, but dont press tthe set button or you're
KNACKERED>>>>>>
I SHOULD KNOW.........................
Steve Barnes
>
> I was told (many years ago) the TV detector vans didn't actually work, but
> that their appearance in a given area caused an increase in the number of
> applications for TV licenses!.
>
>
ISTR that the Licence people have NEVER had real working detector
vans. As you say, the presence of a van with a big antenna on top
is enough....
(This info comes from the time that the Licence people drove their
van into the Rathcoole Estate just outside Belfast. Once the
fire brigade extinguished the flames, the van was found to be
empty)
--
Steve Barnes
Steve Barnes
Bollocks.
If you have a set which is CAPABLE of receiving any form of TV broadcast
you need a licence. Detuning your TV will not get you off the hook.
Even using a RGB monitor, linked to a standard VCR still requires a
licence, as your VCR has a tuning circuit. Similarly with Satellite:
you still need a licence.
Some people tried to get away with a B&W licence, and whenever the
bods called round, turned the color down on their25" Nicam....
Didn't work for them.
The only way in which you can use a telly the way you describe is to
totally remove the tuning circuit from the TV, and use a VCR with no
tuning capability.
--
Steve Barnes
Anthony R. Gold
ste...@nortel.nojunk_please.co.uk "Steve Barnes" writes:
> JIM SEWELL wrote:
> >
> > Remember also, that you are allowed legally to use a TV to watch
> > pre-recorded video tapes, therefor if you detune your telly and those old
> > gits come knocking on your door, you do the following...
> Bollocks.
>
> If you have a set which is CAPABLE of receiving any form of TV broadcast
> you need a licence. Detuning your TV will not get you off the hook.
> Even using a RGB monitor, linked to a standard VCR still requires a
> licence, as your VCR has a tuning circuit. Similarly with Satellite:
> you still need a licence.
That is not correct. "Having" a set is a vague and meaningless
term, and there is nothing in the regulations about "equipment
capable of {anything}"
A TV licence is required "to install or use equipment to receive
television programme services". And there is no absolute offense
attached to owning equipment which is capable of being tuned to
broadcast TV channels without a licence for that use.
If equipment is used to receive TV broadcasts (terrestrial, satellite
of cable borne), then that activity alone requires a licence.
But if the act of reception is not alleged, then the issue becomes
one of intent, and this will be decided by a court. If someone is
alleged to have installed equipment in order to (with the intent of)
receiving programming services, then the technical specification of
the equipment may become an interesting piece of evidence, but that
alone does not create an irrebuttable presumption of intent. A
reasonable rebutal would be that a set was purchased only to watch
pre-recorded tapes and there was no cheaper set available which did
not have a integral broadcast tuner.
If I was the court hearing this matter, the presence or absence of
evidence about an installed and available aerial connection close to
the set would also be material in judging the defendent's intentions.
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
Steve Barnes
>
> In article <35ECF345...@nortel.nojunk_please.co.uk>
> ste...@nortel.nojunk_please.co.uk "Steve Barnes" writes:
>
> > JIM SEWELL wrote:
> > >
> > > Remember also, that you are allowed legally to use a TV to watch
> > > pre-recorded video tapes, therefor if you detune your telly and those old
> > > gits come knocking on your door, you do the following...
>
> > Bollocks.
> >
> > If you have a set which is CAPABLE of receiving any form of TV broadcast
> > you need a licence. Detuning your TV will not get you off the hook.
> > Even using a RGB monitor, linked to a standard VCR still requires a
> > licence, as your VCR has a tuning circuit. Similarly with Satellite:
> > you still need a licence.
>
> That is not correct. "Having" a set is a vague and meaningless
> term, and there is nothing in the regulations about "equipment
> capable of {anything}"
>
OK, my use of the term 'to have' should have been 'to use'. I was
making the point that a licence is required to use something which
has the capability to receive TV pictures, even if that capability
is not used!
> Regards,
> --
> Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
--
Steve Barnes
Anthony R. Gold
ste...@nortel.nojunk_please.co.uk "Steve Barnes" writes:
> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> > That is not correct. "Having" a set is a vague and meaningless
> > term, and there is nothing in the regulations about "equipment
> > capable of {anything}"
> >
> <snip>
>
> OK, my use of the term 'to have' should have been 'to use'. I was
> making the point that a licence is required to use something which
> has the capability to receive TV pictures, even if that capability
> is not used!
I disagree with your point even after you have re-phrased it.
As I wrote before, if there is no actual proven use of the set to
receive TV programming services then the user of the set has nothing
to answer for in his capacity as user. If attention then turns to
the person on whose responsibility the set was installed, who may be
the user, cuplability in this capacity will turn on the intentions
and purposes for installing the set.
The fact that someone used this TV set which is capable of receiving
programming services for another purpose may not prove that there
ever was the intention of receiving programming services with it.
Steve Barnes
Try telling that to my neighbour: was 'done' last year for not having
a licence. He used the set to watch satellite, with no intention of
receiving BBC1, 2, ITV or C4. He didn't even have an aerial.
Despite this, he was fined about #400 + costs.
Naturally with no intention of watching terrestrial TV he tried to
fight his case. Unfortunately for him, the ruling was that if he
used a set capable of receiving terrestrial, then he needed a licence
even if he only ever watched satellite or video. The absence of
an aerial was irrelevent.
--
Steve Barnes
Zubin bhagwagar
> work, but
> > that their appearance in a given area caused an increase in the
> number of
> > applications for TV licenses!.
> >
> > Anyone know the real story ?
> >
>
> :>ISTR that the Licence people have NEVER had real working detector
> :>vans. As you say, the presence of a van with a big antenna on top
> :>is enough....
>
Just wondering about the discrete unit I saw off Oxford St London last
month, cruising very slowly in an unmarked, grey/blue Range
Rover/Discovery.Several antennae on the roof and instruments inside
being attended to. Very unobvious except to the unusually curious, which
I now am!
>
>
Ma...@iridium.nospam.demon.co.uk
you were actually watching the TV - and that can be the Date, Time
and the Channel you were watching :)
Mark.
--
Anthony R. Gold
ste...@nortel.nojunk_please.co.uk "Steve Barnes" writes:
> Try telling that to my neighbour: was 'done' last year for not having
> a licence. He used the set to watch satellite, with no intention of
> receiving BBC1, 2, ITV or C4. He didn't even have an aerial.
>
> Despite this, he was fined about #400 + costs.
>
> Naturally with no intention of watching terrestrial TV he tried to
> fight his case. Unfortunately for him, the ruling was that if he
> used a set capable of receiving terrestrial, then he needed a licence
> even if he only ever watched satellite or video. The absence of
> an aerial was irrelevent.
I clearly explained in a prior post to this thread, one which which
you read and responded to, that programming services which require a
licence include terrestrial, satellite and cable delivered services.
Watching only a shopping channel on Astra or the Parliament Channel
on cable definitley does require the benefit of a TV Licence.
Your neighbour apparently admitted what was indeed an offence and was
correctly convicted, although he may not have properly understood the
reason for his conviction. Indeed he may even have been convicted by
a magistrate who was misdirected by the court clerk on the issues!
But either way, there was no miscarriage of justice.
Steve, I've said it all more than once. If you have any further
questions, please read the thread before asking yet again.
JIM SEWELL
I started this, so perhaps i should put in a bit more content...
Last year we were taken to court for not having a TV licence, whilst having
a fully operational TV set, although the aerial was not connected and it was
not switched on....
The wife let the bloke in thinking that, because we use the set for videos
only that we would be OK. To her shock, he cautioned her, because when the
aerial was connected, up came BBC1. Fairly copped, but wanting to disagree
we went to court instead of buying a licence that week. At court, the TV
licence people had sent down a top man from Bristol; We asked him if it was
ok to use the set to watch JUST videos and he said yes, as long as the TV
was de-tuned and did not show a picture with aerial connected when switched
on.......
As for Satellite etc. I dont know the answer, but from my conversation with
this man, I assume that you do need the licence for ANY incoming signals,
terrestrial or not.....
As a final shot in the arm for them, the guy that visited the house said,
that it was very unusual to be let in, and he has no legal power to gain
entry to property without a search warrant........
ANY QUESTIONS STEVE ???
®_D_u_n_c_a_n
<sewe...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Just to put you guys all straight...
Hi
I once went out with the TV Licencing Van/Detector Van when it was in
my area, how, by asking.
The guys had a print out of every address in our area which didn't
have a licence, they then put their computer thing on to the correct
ransmitter number or something for the local mast to work off this.
They selected names at random and above each wheel was an antenna
which they said was for loacting in which room the tvs were.
I was with them when they caught several o.a.p's. who by their livings
standards, you could tell had nothing (apart from the telly :-) )
These were cautioned and a blind eye turned. What really peeved them
was when they caught people with BMS, Mercedes and Boats on their
drives with no licences.
They told me that unless the detector van (this was 2 yrs ago) had a
semi-circle type antenna on the front, they were unable to tell if you
were evading the black & white licence i.e. operating a colour set.
Anyway in response to your post, they said that they could not do
anything to enforce their investigations - okay they can do but don't
most of the time as long as you ignore the mail and don't open their
mail i.e. answer them.
They said you need a licence for watching videos & satellite, there is
no way around it as you could tune in the Beeb etc. Have alook on
the back of your *new* licence ;-)
We got a licence as our postie kept laughing at us ;-)
® D u n c a n
E-Mail Duncan-Oldham at geocities dot com
=====================================================
Fax UK: 0870 0554660 Fax International: +44 870 0554660
My website http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dreamworld/1441/
Join my free L.F.C. news mailing list http://LFC_News.listbot.com/
I am answerable to nobody other than God. ICQ 8960994
=====================================================
Marc Barbour
case and not a criminal case, the authorities only have to "prove beyond
reasonable doubt" that the set was being used illegally and not prove
outright the use to which it was being put.
Marc
marc.b...@hotmail.com
Remove the first dot to reply by mail
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mbarbour
ICQ 5113432
"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message <904744...@microvest.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <35ED42A4...@nortel.nojunk_please.co.uk>
> ste...@nortel.nojunk_please.co.uk "Steve Barnes" writes:
>
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>
>I disagree with your point even after you have re-phrased it.
>
>As I wrote before, if there is no actual proven use of the set to
>receive TV programming services then the user of the set has nothing
>to answer for in his capacity as user. If attention then turns to
>the person on whose responsibility the set was installed, who may be
>the user, cuplability in this capacity will turn on the intentions
>and purposes for installing the set.
>
>The fact that someone used this TV set which is capable of receiving
>programming services for another purpose may not prove that there
>ever was the intention of receiving programming services with it.
>
Nigel G001
<zubin.b...@psych.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>Just wondering about the discrete unit I saw off Oxford St London last
>month, cruising very slowly in an unmarked, grey/blue Range
>Rover/Discovery.Several antennae on the roof and instruments inside
>being attended to. Very unobvious except to the unusually curious, which
>I now am!
>
Doesn't sound like Radio Interference or TV Detector vans, more like a military
unit, maybe counter-terrorism?
Radio Interference normally use a white unmarked van, no rear windows. Often
seen parked up in the corner of Hyde Park - covered in discones- listening to
the pirate stations.
I doubt if funding would stretch to a Range Rover / Discovery.
tara.
Steve Barnes
>
> Just to put you guys all straight...
>
> ANY QUESTIONS STEVE ???
Whooaaa... hold on a mo.
Maybe it's my misinterpretation of what has been posted. Maybe
my postings are being misinterpreted. Maybe I'm thick... but...
I have been in agreement with your point all along. I was just
trying to add some value by informing you of my personal, well
a neighbour's personal experience. In *this* case, he was told
by the licencing people that if the set was 'capable' of receiving
then a licence was required. Whether this is right or wrong in
law is probably irrelevent now, but please don't flame me for
just trying to add more info.
I think I'll keep my mouth shut from now on.
--
Steve Barnes
Steve Pickering
<nige...@aol.com> writes
Greetings
Our local DTI radio interference man has a Discovery with lots of funny
antennas on board, I know who he is as he investigated a friend who was
causing TVI to a neighbour - friend was running a legal CB system so no
problem for him.
As a side note his scanner was safely hidden upstairs in the loft away
from the CB system. Just to be safe.
--
Steve P. St Andrews, Fife. Scotland (56.20.35 N 002 46.90 W)
Check 6 - Phantoms Phorever
Duncan Hawkins
<zubin.b...@psych.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > I was told (many years ago) the TV detector vans didn't actually
>> work, but
>> > that their appearance in a given area caused an increase in the
>> number of
>> > applications for TV licenses!.
>> >
>> > Anyone know the real story ?
>> >
>>
>> :>ISTR that the Licence people have NEVER had real working detector
>> :>vans. As you say, the presence of a van with a big antenna on top
>> :>is enough....
>>
>
>Just wondering about the discrete unit I saw off Oxford St London last
>month, cruising very slowly in an unmarked, grey/blue Range
>Rover/Discovery.Several antennae on the roof and instruments inside
>being attended to. Very unobvious except to the unusually curious, which
>I now am!
>
>>
If its owned by the Met it will likely have a registration mark in the
same series as that years patrol cars. Common are ones with a U or Y
as centre letter - KUU GUU CYH KUV MUV HUC YUC KYY CYY LUV LYV CYV
etc.
Alternatively it may be one of the DTI Radiocomms Agency vehicles.
HANDY TIP.
The majority of government fleet vehicles have a non-standard exempt
road tax disk instead of the type you would buy!
Duncan
E17
Duncan Hawkins
<marc.b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I would have thought that seeing as using a TV without a licence is a civil
>case and not a criminal case, the authorities only have to "prove beyond
>reasonable doubt" that the set was being used illegally and not prove
>outright the use to which it was being put.
>
The offence has been recently reclassified from criminal to civil.
Duncan
E17
Lord Edam de Fromage
"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
>In article <6sk9sl$kpm$1...@heliodor.xara.net>
> marc.b...@hotmail.com "Marc Barbour" writes:
>
>> I would have thought that seeing as using a TV without a licence is
a civil
>> case and not a criminal case, the authorities only have to "prove
beyond
>> reasonable doubt" that the set was being used illegally and not
prove
>> outright the use to which it was being put.
>
>a criminal conviction.
>
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt for criminal conviction, and On the Balalnce
of Probabilty for a civil 'cpnviction' or whatever it is. That's one
of the reasons you find people opting for a civil damages case against
an attacker/murderer/whatever, rather than pursuing a criminal
conviction. It should be much easier to win a civil case.
On The Balance Of Probabilty, anybody possesing a TV set will use it
to recieve TV Broadcasts, and I always thought it was ANY TV
broadcast, not just terrestrial broadcast that was counted. There are
people in parts of the country who cannot recieve terrestrial
broadcasts of any kind, have been refused the chance to errect a
booster ariel on a nearby hill, and STILL have to pay for a TV
licence.
Martin Briscoe
from int...@globalnet.co.uk (Duncan Hawkins) contains these words:
> If its owned by the Met it will likely have a registration mark in the
> same series as that years patrol cars. Common are ones with a U or Y
> as centre letter - KUU GUU CYH KUV MUV HUC YUC KYY CYY LUV LYV CYV
> etc.
So do many other fleet / leased vehicles - we have several NYN's and
xUY's but are in the North of Scotland. Just that the leasing company
will be somewhere down South.
Martin
Nigel Callaghan
>In article <35ED6C31...@psych.ox.ac.uk>, Zubin bhagwagar
><zubin.b...@psych.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
>>Just wondering about the discrete unit I saw off Oxford St London last
>>month, cruising very slowly in an unmarked, grey/blue Range
>>Rover/Discovery.Several antennae on the roof and instruments inside
>>being attended to. Very unobvious except to the unusually curious, which
>>I now am!
Hi People,
here in Huntingdonshire, Radio Interference Team are using a Land
Rover Discovery with a chuffing great big Log Periodic mounted on a
compressed air telescopic mast.
Spoke to the guy recently, who was checking out back reflection from
Sandy Transmitter.
Next time to see this vehicle, go talk to them.
Regards
Nigel Callaghan
Huntingdonshire
Kevin
Duncan Hawkins
Callaghan) wrote:
>On 02 Sep 1998 21:26:39 GMT, nige...@aol.com (Nigel G001) wrote:
>
>>In article <35ED6C31...@psych.ox.ac.uk>, Zubin bhagwagar
>><zubin.b...@psych.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>>>Just wondering about the discrete unit I saw off Oxford St London last
>>>month, cruising very slowly in an unmarked, grey/blue Range
>>>Rover/Discovery.Several antennae on the roof and instruments inside
>>>being attended to. Very unobvious except to the unusually curious, which
>>>I now am!
>
I have just spoken to the chap in charge of the RA fleet, and their
commercial fleet are mainly Disco's, with a couple of Sherpas and
Mercs vans.
Duncan
E17