BBC will ‘retain your viewing history’ Last week the BBC launched a mobile app, called BBC+, delivering “customisable content collections” to your phone or tablet. It’s a personalised service which requires an email address. Last year, when the corporation announced its plans for personalised services, it made several data protection promises. Specifically, Phil …
"We have met and continue to engage with the ICO on personal data usage. We regularly review the ICO’s published guidance about current and future legislation, particularly in relation to GDPR. We comply with all aspects of the Data Protection Act and take the operational privacy and security of people’s personal information very seriously."
I recognise all the words but have a problem extracting meaning. I do, however, recognise the last bit. It occurs frequently in association with "only a few customers were affected" or similar expressions.
I do, however, recognise the last bit.
The first bit (We have met and continue to engage with the ICO on personal data usage etc) sounds to me as if they are looking for loopholes. Why would you need to meet/engage with the ICO other than to see if some wheeze is allowed?
I recognise all the words but have a problem extracting meaning.
Try this... "We have lots of meetings. The morning pastries are excellent and the lunch and beer are perfect. We also get write all this off our taxes and have a few manager types not on the premises so the worker bees get a few more things done."
As an outsider who's had meetings at the BBC, I can confirm there is tea and coffee but there are no free pastries and few boozy lunches, mainly because of miserly funts who think that working for any publicly-funded body should be a monastic slog. There might be a subsidised cafe and bar, which is entirely reasonable. The exception is for visiting journalists, politicians and celebs, who are showered with food and booze as they are everywhere, and probably think this applies to everyone else.
As Fearnley says, the BBC is not trying to sell you anything
Well, either he's lying through his teeth, or http://store.bbc.com/ is about to be closed down.
I wonder which it is?
You also have to consider that while -they- aren't trying to sell you something, they have advertisers that pay a pretty penny to get their hands on it (in fact, television stations were among the first to get on the "sell our customers' data to advertisers" business model). TV viewing habits are quite valuable to advertisers, especially when they can be combined with the mountains of data they are gathering from all their other sources.
Could you ask the BBC specifically whether it has carried out a Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF]?
If they have, could they share it with us, please? And if they haven't, pray why not?
The offer of loadsamoney from a Large Ad slinger will make the BBC change their pledge and bang all that lovely data has gone to the Ad men. Once they finish drooling over it, you will get bombarded with Ad for things that you never knew existed let alone wanted just because some relationship was match to a word in a page you once viewed for 5 nano seconds.
nope. sorry BBC not going to bite.
Posting Anon for ... well you know why.
Opera use to have a similar pledge about the data they gathered on users of its browser. We're going to find out that that's worth now that it's been bought over. (I know the BBC is not 'commercial' entity but that didn't stop Call Me Dave selling extremely sensitive personal information held by the NHS for a tiny fraction of it's value and there's plenty of MPs who would like to see it privatised or made to pay it's way more (both the BBC and the NHS)).
Hmmm. The BBC have sent me threatening letters with the possibility of imprisonment behind them for not wanting to use their service.
I once owned a TV, via which I viewed DVDs and digital video from my Mac and cable TV from Virgin. As a TV owner the BBC demanded that I must be compelled to pay a punitive tax, for not wanting to use their service. I refused, the BBC didn't think this was acceptable, and and the threatening began.
Think about it.
Wow you are lucky. I don't have a TV anymore, nor devices for watching. I get a letter every other week (which I save and deliver to my MP). I get a visit around once a month (which I refuse to let in my house). Eventually they will get tired of the game and turn up with some court order I expect.
This is intimidation. If I were a little old pensioner instead of being a bloody minded miserable grumpy old man then I might be scared into all sorts.
In the UK we are supposed (and I know it is now very clearly no longer the case) we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is up 'to them' to build a case and prove you are guilty of an offence, it is NOT up to you to prove yourself innocent.
I expect we will soon see the day when MPs back down and allow the BBC to charge us all regardless of whether we have any means of viewing tv. They will argue that the bbc provides online stuff for everyone and therefore is allowed the money. This will lead to situations like the one in Germany where a guy with no power never mind tv in a shack in a forest clearing has to have a licence.
Frankly I would prefer the MPs dismantle the bbc and let it go to a warm place in a handcart
And the other doozy coming from Auntie Beeb is you'll need a TV licence for Iplayer from 1st September 2016.
Amazing how they can retain your data on the one hand, and on the other are incapable of tying a username/password to your TV licence account.
More info:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/bbc-iplayer-and-the-tv-licence
Expect a raft of BBC programs to appear on torrent sites, usage in "getIplayer" will increase, and the BBC will be asking ISPs for users IP details to see if any of them ARE connecting to the BBC.
Cat and mouse again.
I'll stick with my black and white license.
PS, as i do not need a license to pick up radio, will the iplayer radio site be covered in this little facade as well???
PS, as i do not need a license to pick up radio, will the iplayer radio site be covered in this little facade as well???
You could have found the answer to that by looking at the site linked-to:
"There will be just two exceptions – watching S4C TV on demand and listening to radio. "
The modifications to the communications act due for September may be found http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/704/pdfs/uksi_20160704_en.pdf
I've yet to work out for certain if "on-demand programme provided by BBC" includes archived music or not, there could still be scope for this to happen.
"And the other doozy coming from Auntie Beeb is you'll need a TV licence for Iplayer from 1st September 2016.
Amazing how they can retain your data on the one hand, and on the other are incapable of tying a username/password to your TV licence account."
The suggestion is that you will need to use your TV licence details to access iPlayer so yes, they will know everything about you.
Click (the video program) was first an iPlayer exclusive, then went on to be hidden away on BBC news (where nobody knew it was on). Click is like a modern Tomorrow's world but rather than make it available to the masses (BBC1 or BBC2) they hide it away thereby wasting tax payer's money. They send a full staff and crew on jollies all around globe. If the BBC had to earn a living they would make sure this program was publicized and as many people watched as possible. But because of the unique way they are funded (extortion) it doesn't affect the bottomless pit. So the presenters become rich on your dime with next to zero viewers.
The BBC do not produce anything worth watching anyway, every time I see a BBC channel it's deadenders, antiques shows, house buying/selling or biased news.
There used to be a show called Top Gear that was fairly good, but even that's been messed up now.
So thankfully I'll not be using this service, even more so now they will be retaining and selling your viewing records (They claim they don't, but they will eventually even if in secret, after all.. why collect it if you don't plan to use it?)
I would suggest to everyone: Ditch your TV License, totally block any and all BBC channels on your TV, block BBC URL's on all your internet accessing kit and just stop paying for the pointless license.
Or better yet, do it my way, take down your aerial antenna/dish, and sell it on eBay, this way there is no TV signals at all coming from your property, then just hook up a computer with Kodi/Netflix and download anything you intend to watch instead.
You need to notify them that you do not require a TV license, but they ignore it and still send abusive threatening letters anyway.
But this way, even if they turn up you can just say "I don't need a TV License". Although, in the 5 years or so I've not paid for a TV license I've not had anyone actually turn up yet, lots of wasted paper from them though.
"I would suggest to everyone: Ditch your TV License ............ download anything you intend to watch instead."
And when no one makes TV or films because there's no profit to be had, what then?
It wont work. I've ignored all forms of sport for 30 years and yet it's still out there.
I don't watch a lot of TV but when I do it's mostly BBC. If we're listing worthy BBC output then how about:
- various sciency programs including but not limited to Sky at Night, some Horizon, etc
and most definitely Attenborough as already mentioned
- certain comedies (definitely not Mrs. Brown's Boys although each to their own)
- HIGNFY
- loads of good kids programmes
- Doctor who is still worth a watch, when its on
- ditto Sherlock
- Sport if you're into that
- The news is claimed to be biased by both ends of the political spectrum, so it must be reasonable
Having all this plus all the crap that I don't like (but others do), and with the only ads trailers for other BBC stuff, makes the licence fee a bargain IMO.
Seriously, have a look at the A-Z and tell me it's all rubbish.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/a-z/a
There may indeed be things like documentaries which some people may enjoy to watch. But do not forget that in 90% of cases those same documentaries (such as Attenborough) can be purchased on VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray.
The case is the same with Doctor Who for example.
As such, if there's one show in particular you really need to see, you could just buy the disc version when it is released, thus no TV License required and you still get to see it.
However, personally there is nothing from the BBC that I watch.
"The BBC do not produce anything worth watching anyway, every time I see a BBC channel"
You also say "Although, in the 5 years or so I've not paid for a TV license" so are we to take it you're watching someone else's TV?
"it's deadenders, antiques shows, house buying/selling"
Such programmes have audiences sufficiently large that it's worth making those programmes. Indeed, if you're watching someone else's TV in order to see these then it would appear that your hosts are amongst that audience. Maybe that audience wouldn't want to watch the programmes you'd prefer.
" or biased news."
I take it that this means news that doesn't reflect your own biases. As a general principle I'd expect that the more effective a news organisation is at avoiding bias the more likely it is that people will consider it biassed, an artefact resulting from their own biasses.
"There used to be a show called Top Gear that was fairly good, but even that's been messed up now."
Now there you have a point.
Maybe you don't live somewhere they can easily find, I have had plenty of visits. You don't need to let them in of course... in fact you can write to the TV people and withdraw their right to cross your garden to the door. However eventually they will turn up with legal enforcement to search (and then of course you could in theory sue them for defamation of your character by implying you are a criminal, not that you will win)
I know you don't have to let them in, to be honest I wouldn't. But in the case they do bring law enforcement that would simply find that I have no Live TV and my computers cannot load the BBC websites.
Thus, legally there is nothing they can do.
Firstly the computer hooked to the TV with Kodi only has local network access, it cannot access the interwebs at all and my desktop computer blocks the BBC websites.
Although, they would probably try a few "common" tricks to bypass the computer blocking, but I'm sure using Linux would be enough to confuse them as web proxies won't work (due to firewall configuration) and the only way would be to edit the firewall configuration to unblock them but you'd need root for that, I wouldn't give them root and they would have to attempt to physically beat it out of me.
But I don't care what they want. The way I see it is, my house, my TV, if I choose not to watch Live TV or BBC and thus not pay for a TV Licence* then that's my choice to make.
Sounds like you're already breaking the law, and this would too - you currently need a TV licence to watch ANY broadcast programs, not just the BBC's. This has been the law in the UK for decades though I only discovered it 10 years ago when the analogue switch off was imminent and I checked to see if I no longer needed a licence since I would no longer be able to receive broadcasts.
I found I already didn't need one since I never watched broadcasts, just DVDs, so I applied for a refund and got one :) (though not back-dated as far as it should have been). The new rules are basically adding iPlayer to the definition of "broadcast". In September I'll stop using iPlayer, maybe I'll start using NetFlix since it's much cheaper.
@Roopee, read the next paragraph, you'll find I'm receiving no broadcasts at all as I have no aerial antenna or satellite dishes.
Also, my TV is technically a computer monitor, just a 32" one used as a TV so does not have an Aerial socket.
(So they cannot plug a portable one in, in an attempt to make the TV catch a live stream)
And, with all BBC websites blocked, there is no iPlayer.
Thus, I do not need a licence. Though I'm sure the BBC would love to be able to charge me for one anyway. Heck they even attempt to charge empty houses.
Ever moved in to a property that's been empty for a few years to find a ton of no license letters? I have!
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/bbc-iplayer-and-the-tv-licence
I already have a licence. What will I need to do?
...You and anyone living at your address will already be covered to download or watch BBC programmes on demand on iPlayer...
So what if I download via WiFi at the rail stations / airport / at a mates?
As long as I live at my licensed address that'll be OK then?
Whole new ball game.
However if you look a the FAQ, as soon as you charge your phone or tablet somewhere outside your own household while watching iPlayer it magically changes from legal reception to illegal reception.
BBC iPlayer and the TV Licence
Will I be covered to use BBC iPlayer when I’m on the go or abroad?
If you already have a TV Licence for your address, you will be covered to download or watch iPlayer when you’re on the go, provided the device you’re using to watch or download programmes isn’t plugged into the electricity mains at a separate address. If the device is plugged in at a separate address, you will need to be covered by a licence at that address.
> However if you look a the FAQ, as soon as you charge your phone or tablet somewhere outside your own household while watching iPlayer it magically changes from legal reception to illegal reception.
It's okay, Beeb bosses - being technical savants - have thought of this already. The iPlayer app will simply prevent the device from charging when away from home network.
That's just an extension of the battery powered portable TV clause that they had when I was a student (might still exist today). I had a portable black and TV when at Uni (it was a long time ago now) and it took batteries which meant I was covered by my parents license. In the halls in my first year there was one porter (right bastard) who was well known for calling TVL if he thought you were using a TV without a license. People had often wondered why they were targeted by TVL until another porter spilled the beans. So one day I made a decision to watch TV where I'm sure he'll catch me doing it, in the communal area right next door to the Porters office.
Low and behold I've not had the TV on for two minutes when he comes through the door to the communal utilities area. Spots me watching my TV whilst waiting for my laundry to finish washing and walked over. Asked nonchalantly if I had a license I said No I didn't need one and most people there didn't either because we all used battery powered equipment. I showed him the lack of an attached power cord and said that whilst the picture on the portable wasn't great down here, on floor 8 it was very good. Oh he wasn't happy with that news and asked if I have it in writing anywhere which I did happen to deliberately have. Reads the licensing leaflet with interest and then said he had to check in with the office for his security rounds.
I can hear him phoning TVL who confirm what I've told/shown him and then the phone was slammed down and he reappeared. Handed me back my piece of paper and said "So your parent's have a TV license do they?" My TV was by today's standards microscopic but it could and did run on batteries if needed, especially for demonstration purposes to nosy git porters. I might have charged batteries away from home and I certainly had a power cord for it in my room for use if the batteries were flat. The porter on the other hand stopped being so aggressive about everyone having a TV license.
"If the device is plugged in at a separate address, you will need to be covered by a licence at that address."
Echoes of the TV licencing for students away from the parental home.
You didn't need a separate licence as long as you used a battery powered telly, rechargeable batteries not allowed.
Knowing what a dent radio batteries put in my pocket money as a kid, I wasn't going there.
I don't remember rechargeable batteries being banned in my day they just had to be internal batteries (6 heavy D cells in my case). So you couldn't have your student accommodation as a caravan/mobile home, hook it up to the battery fed power supply in said caravan/motorhome and watch TV.
"If the device is plugged in at a separate address, you will need to be covered by a licence at that address."
OK, good luck with that do please let us know how yo get on with enforcing that particular twist.
SCN: John is at Frank's house. They are watching John's ipad; (effect) Door Knock
Frank: Quick John unplug the Ipad its the beeb's enforcers!!
Enforcer: Was that plugged in?
John: Nope
Enforcer: Er... right. We'll be watching you chummy!
Don't think I have watched anything on the beeb in many a year. Time and rubbish content mainly, as I don't do anything "reality", "cooking" or "gardening". and Dave shows enough repeats of the only two programs that the BBC did - which I like. (QI and mock the week)
That being said, only time till even the BBC sells out as a data miner, and the Govt is intent on selling anything they can, so are we shocked?
Really, I mean anyone think this is going to NOT turn into a cash cow?
Welcome to sell you out Britain.
Between the gov trying to sell you medical history, to the Beeb trying to grab the opportunity, we just have to wait until Brexit then we'll be reclassified as serfs?
I've done without broadcast TV for years, iplayer seems not to offer much, and the news site is so still flash locked on video and lacking any detail on text, it's next to useless, I can do without the BBC.
Seeing as more and more people are not buying into the BBC extortion that is the license fee. They are slowing moving towards saying, "Look at all the people who use us online, they should pay." Then they will move to have the TV tax include all telephone and broadband users. That way the bottomless pit of money will be secured for generations to come. I myself will go to prison before I submit to extortion. If the BBC want money then make good programs that everyone wants to watch. Not the usual gardening, nature watch, antiques, cooking, dancing, Eastender crap. I know they can do it but it doesn't affect their bottom line whatever they do, so they don't bother. I wish I could run a company funded the same way the BBC is. But there are laws against it.
When you consider the production value and writing quality of some of the Youtube channels out there. I often wonder where the BBC spunks its cash.
Slebs are not worth the millions they get paid. Especially on a none commercial TV network.
If anything license payers should get a dividend back from the profit made selling BBC products abroad.
Thats how investing in public companies normally works.
I assume you're intending to carry on paying Rupert his extortion money - that's just as bottomless a pit...
...especially if (for example) you intend watching any sport at all - all the live golf and cricket now, all the F1 from 2018. I'll wager the FA will shaft Auntie in due course, and then watch the prices rocket!
No, I'm not saying that. Here is an example. I watched the reboot of robot wars and what I saw was something that looked more like a documentary rather than a fast paced robot fighting competition. The robot wars I remember was all about the fighting, now we get half the program full of boring interviews by the 'egg man' who is ill suited to host this kind of program. I'm sure Dara is a multi-millionaire now as he hosts so many programs. How is this value for money? It is not entertaining and anybody could have done a better job than the BBC. For contrast watch Battlebots from the USA to see what robot wars is really about. If the BBC sought to entertain they would have just bought the series from the US and saved money. But no, The bottomless pit kicks in and we get home made shit.
FYI I don't subscribe to SKY as the 'monkey man' is even worse than the BBC and like I said I will not be exhorted by anyone.
"For contrast watch Battlebots from the USA to see what robot wars is really about. "
Although I agree with most of your comments re Robot Wars 2.0, Battlesbots left me cold. Watched one episode and then treated it like sport. ie never watched again.
Having said, I see it;s time to roll out the venerable XKCD
<posh voice>Oh yes, we do have a TV somewhere in the house. But we only watch University Challenge.</posh voice>
" If the BBC want money then make good programs that everyone wants to watch. Not the usual gardening, nature watch, antiques, cooking, dancing, Eastender crap."
Has it occurred to you that there are few if any programmes that everyone wants but that the programmes the BBC chooses to make are those for which it has the largest number of people wanting to watch?
Working away most of the time so I watched telly at my cousins house two doors up the road and ate most meals there too, so I'd bought a new telly and transported it to Spain for my mum one Christmas and of course the shop gave my details to the licensing authorities.
On the sixth visit by them, three times with police in tow cos I wouldn't let them in on the other occasions I finally told the truth.
The copper can I borrow your step ladders? Yep, sure look around all you like!
Always had a lovely WPC with them, love a woman in uniform.
On the one hand, this article is a scare story. The BBC has actually had email-verified personalised accounts for many, many years. This is just the latest rebrand.
On the other hand, I know Mr Fearnley from a past life, so I'm backing into the shadows to popcorn.
will retain "some activity data in an anonymised form"
Because the BBC tracks how often iplayer is accessed and what is watched, and whether it's a repeat viewing or a new viewer, and what else they've watched. And by the time anyone gets around to deleting their account, that info has probably already been analysed and reported on in terms of viewing figures and for the benefit of the programmers and commissioners.
Unless you want to do an 1984 and un-watch something.
Now when your country in leaving Europe and apparently joining Asia, I do not care about you at all. Recently, during a visit to Scotland the only channel on the hotel TV that was watchable was BBC Alba (mostly because I do not speak Gaelic). I hope it will become SBC Alba soon, anyway.
After all the minute the police and uberstazi May cotton on their is another source of information available the BBC will be forced to keep it for 20 years in case they can prove a link between watching big brother and terrorism.
Then of course the bbc demand an email (heaven only knows what for)... easy enough to get a temp email from a number of places. Its hardly defining data, just really quite pathetic, an unnecessary hindrance that will put a number of people off bothering with the 'service'.
There's this thing called data integrity which is critical to modern databases, and it's dependent upon having no data gaps, therefore "deleted" data usually isn't deleted, but simply marked as "deleted."
This isn't 100% the case, but on modern web-based systems all records (if not most) in a relational database are typically handled as program objects with one or more critical relationships to other program objects which are in turn based on database records. It's a tight-knit web, and removing one segment could bring the whole thing crashing down. To alleviate this issue, developers will typically just add a "deleted" flag to the record when a user requests that it be deleted. The record won't show up in typical data queries ("select all records not marked as deleted"), but it still exists and may even be easily accessible when a related record which hasn't been deleted is accessed.
Here a practical example of not really deleted data:
Suppose you create an account with an on-line retailer like Amazon.com, then "delete" your account after several years of on-line shopping. The retailer may mark your account deleted and make it impossible for you to log in any more, but it's extremely unlikely that your account data will be deleted as your order records needs to remain accessible to the retailer for the sake of keeping its financial and inventory records correct, and for the sake of "data integrity" those order records need to be associated with a user account record.
A less practical but still likely example:
Suppose you create an account with a social network like Facebook. After years of use you decide you're done with the social network and request that your account be deleted. Your profile may "disappear" from the internet, along with all your posts and comments, but other users have made several comments on your photos, videos, and other posts. Unless these other users' comments are deleted off of their accounts when your account is deleted, they still exist and still point to your account and therefore need your account to exist, albeit flagged as "deleted," for the sake of data integrity.
It *is* possible to anonymize old data, by overwriting names, phone numbers, e-mail/IP/physical addresses, credit card numbers, etc. with blank, random, or generic information like "deleted," but it takes a *lot* of extra time and effort, and the opposition to this is 1) employers are reluctant to spend any money on having the developers go the extra mile to scrub data which *supposedly* nobody will ever look at again, and 2) most programmers are notoriously lazy bastards who will take any shortcut to make their work go faster, including skipping the development of "unnecessary features."
Also to consider is that a properly operated web service should regularly make backups of its database. That old backup may include your personal data from before it was deleted, and how long that backup is preserved before being deleted can vary anywhere from a few months to never. If that backup were to fall into the wrong hands, it could be put to misuse as easily as a compromised live database.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
