Follow
@louisoft01
They probably don't. It's just fear mongering.
They claimed in the 60s that they had a van that could tell if you were watching TV and paying the license.
@se7en It has been documented that Capita go to people's houses where no TV licence is on file and bullies them by attempting to reconnect equipment should the owner leave the room.
@matrix @louisoft01
@matrix @louisoft01
@se7en I have remembered the video incorrectly. He does not leave the room but the inspector still tries to reconnect equipment. https://invidio.us/watch?v=LPasGRGTuKE
There are other videos as well but mostly of the inspectors not agreeing to being filmed.
@louisoft01 @matrix
There are other videos as well but mostly of the inspectors not agreeing to being filmed.
@louisoft01 @matrix
@matrix @louisoft01 Want to know some fun facts in this vein? They're about using your phone while driving.
What the British police tell you: "If you have an accident, we can look up whether you were using your phone at the time. There's nowhere to hide."
The reality: They can request call logs from the network of they can make the case that it's relevant to an ongoing investigation, and if they have your phone number (I.E. because you have a contract phone.) If you use PAYG or even a "lite contract" service like Gifgaff, they often can't determine your phone number.
The data they requisition will only tell them of calls and SMS messages made around the time of the accident. Most prosecutions from this result from SMS data requisition. Call data is less useful because you could have been using a hands free kit. (If the accident didn't constitute a criminal offense - say a minor thing, rear ending someone at a low speed - then this renders hands free call data irrelevant, since hands free kits are legal. If you committed a serious motoring offense, however, such as death by dangerous driving, then hands free call data can be used to strengthen the prosecution's case that you weren't paying attention to the road.)
There is no meaningful way for the police to use mobile Internet data to build a case against you. The exchange of packets tells them absolutely nothing, since many apps use data connection in the background, and even heavy usage - such as from a VOIP call - could just as easily have been you streaming music on Spotify while driving.)
What the British police tell you: "If we spot you on the road or stop you, we can collect evidence they you were using your phone while driving. We will find out."
The reality: This evidence usually consists of video footage of you physically using your phone while driving. This is why police cars record video all around them at basically all times. If there is no line of sight to your phone, they cannot prove shit. Hands fiddling around below the visible eye line could just as easily be adjusting a radio, setting a sat nav, or opening food - all perfectly legal to do while driving, with the wasn't caveat as a hands free kit: providing you aren't committing another motoring offense that your distraction could be argued to have contributed to.
Even using a phone in a mount is legal. Legally speaking, anything directly attached to the dashboard, by holsters or whatever, is considered part of the dashboard controls and legal to operate while driving.
Police will sometimes stop drivers who they see doing what they call the "nodding dog" - looking up and down between the road and a device below the eye line of the window. In these cases, they will attempt to extract a confession from the driver, and build a case on that. For this, they rely on intimidation. Do not speak to the police. This, as always, is the GOLDEN rule.
Lastly, remember that a police officer never has the right to ask to see your phone, or its contents, or for you to unlock it, without written authorisation as part of an existing investigation. A police officer who stops you will never have this paperwork.
Oh, and bonus round: Any policeman attempting to book you for a motoring offense MUST BE IN UNIFORM, even if they were in an unmarked car. End of story.
Law enforcement relies on intimidation and the illusion of greater power in order to police society. It relies also upon ignorance of the easiness of crime.
What the British police tell you: "If you have an accident, we can look up whether you were using your phone at the time. There's nowhere to hide."
The reality: They can request call logs from the network of they can make the case that it's relevant to an ongoing investigation, and if they have your phone number (I.E. because you have a contract phone.) If you use PAYG or even a "lite contract" service like Gifgaff, they often can't determine your phone number.
The data they requisition will only tell them of calls and SMS messages made around the time of the accident. Most prosecutions from this result from SMS data requisition. Call data is less useful because you could have been using a hands free kit. (If the accident didn't constitute a criminal offense - say a minor thing, rear ending someone at a low speed - then this renders hands free call data irrelevant, since hands free kits are legal. If you committed a serious motoring offense, however, such as death by dangerous driving, then hands free call data can be used to strengthen the prosecution's case that you weren't paying attention to the road.)
There is no meaningful way for the police to use mobile Internet data to build a case against you. The exchange of packets tells them absolutely nothing, since many apps use data connection in the background, and even heavy usage - such as from a VOIP call - could just as easily have been you streaming music on Spotify while driving.)
What the British police tell you: "If we spot you on the road or stop you, we can collect evidence they you were using your phone while driving. We will find out."
The reality: This evidence usually consists of video footage of you physically using your phone while driving. This is why police cars record video all around them at basically all times. If there is no line of sight to your phone, they cannot prove shit. Hands fiddling around below the visible eye line could just as easily be adjusting a radio, setting a sat nav, or opening food - all perfectly legal to do while driving, with the wasn't caveat as a hands free kit: providing you aren't committing another motoring offense that your distraction could be argued to have contributed to.
Even using a phone in a mount is legal. Legally speaking, anything directly attached to the dashboard, by holsters or whatever, is considered part of the dashboard controls and legal to operate while driving.
Police will sometimes stop drivers who they see doing what they call the "nodding dog" - looking up and down between the road and a device below the eye line of the window. In these cases, they will attempt to extract a confession from the driver, and build a case on that. For this, they rely on intimidation. Do not speak to the police. This, as always, is the GOLDEN rule.
Lastly, remember that a police officer never has the right to ask to see your phone, or its contents, or for you to unlock it, without written authorisation as part of an existing investigation. A police officer who stops you will never have this paperwork.
Oh, and bonus round: Any policeman attempting to book you for a motoring offense MUST BE IN UNIFORM, even if they were in an unmarked car. End of story.
Law enforcement relies on intimidation and the illusion of greater power in order to police society. It relies also upon ignorance of the easiness of crime.
@matrix @louisoft01 They still claim that.
They still claim that
@louisoft01