Viewing Illegal Streams: No Cautions, Fines or Arrests Say GM Police(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Viewing Illegal Streams: No Cautions, Fines or Arrests Say GM Police
https://torrentfreak.com/viewing-illegal-streams-no-cautions-fines-or-arrests-say-gm-police-240129/
112 comments
Here's what you need to do at minimum to watch NBA games in the US:
- Buy a cable package and make sure it has both ESPN and TNT (different providers will include them in different subscription tiers, so you have to check).
- ESPN and TNT will each only broadcast a select number of primetime games, so for the rest you need NBA league pass. This may be offered as an add-on by your cable provider, or you may need to buy it directly from the NBA's own site (and use a separate app for those games).
- However your local or regional teams' games won't be available on League Pass, so you have to figure out which company has bought local rights for that particular team (e.g. Bally Sports for Knicks games in the NY area) and pay for that channel as well.
- Sometimes that regional network and your cable provider will be unable to strike a deal. If that happens - too bad, you literally cannot watch home games of your local team legally.
The situation in the NFL is even worse.
So yeah, it's no surprise that a large number of fans who would otherwise have paid for games choose to just stream them illegally with one click.
- Buy a cable package and make sure it has both ESPN and TNT (different providers will include them in different subscription tiers, so you have to check).
- ESPN and TNT will each only broadcast a select number of primetime games, so for the rest you need NBA league pass. This may be offered as an add-on by your cable provider, or you may need to buy it directly from the NBA's own site (and use a separate app for those games).
- However your local or regional teams' games won't be available on League Pass, so you have to figure out which company has bought local rights for that particular team (e.g. Bally Sports for Knicks games in the NY area) and pay for that channel as well.
- Sometimes that regional network and your cable provider will be unable to strike a deal. If that happens - too bad, you literally cannot watch home games of your local team legally.
The situation in the NFL is even worse.
So yeah, it's no surprise that a large number of fans who would otherwise have paid for games choose to just stream them illegally with one click.
The NFL is at least merciful to fans of local market teams. If you live close enough to where your favorite team is based, you can watch most games for free, over the air, or with a basic TV subscription. It's unfortunate for the NBA or MLB fans that they need to figure out what local cable channel has the rights to their team.
The real pain is if you're a fan of an out of market NFL team, in which case...
- Cable with ESPN for MNF (if your local team is playing, this should be free on ABC) - Prime for TNF (iirc the local market gets this on fox??) - NFL Sunday ticket
I think the only exceptions this year were the two games exclusive to peacock, and the London games. I don't know if they show the London game for free to the local market.
The real pain is if you're a fan of an out of market NFL team, in which case...
- Cable with ESPN for MNF (if your local team is playing, this should be free on ABC) - Prime for TNF (iirc the local market gets this on fox??) - NFL Sunday ticket
I think the only exceptions this year were the two games exclusive to peacock, and the London games. I don't know if they show the London game for free to the local market.
The problem there is that most of the OTA broadcasts are in glorious 720p.
OTA broadcasts look fantastic compared to the streaming counterparts likely due to the bitrate. It is extremely noticeable.
source: I used to be a cord-cutter
source: I used to be a cord-cutter
I just checked. my local ABC and FOX are 720p, but NBC and CBS are 1080i
Idk why, but this hasn't really seemed bad to me. Maybe my TV has been upscaling and that's why I don't notice?
Reading around it's unclear if they broadcast above 720p anywhere, even over cable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company . Maybe the cable companies upscale?
Whatever the case may be, I'd rather have 720p for free than have to pay.
Idk why, but this hasn't really seemed bad to me. Maybe my TV has been upscaling and that's why I don't notice?
Reading around it's unclear if they broadcast above 720p anywhere, even over cable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company . Maybe the cable companies upscale?
Whatever the case may be, I'd rather have 720p for free than have to pay.
This is literally not true. OTA broadcasts are in HD and look great.
Even if you pay for all the services, it can be annoying to find where the game is, assuming it's not blacked out.
The pirate streams are great because you can just click on the game you want and watch it. You don't have to flip between three channels, wait for commercials, wait for other games to end, etc.
The pirate streams are great because you can just click on the game you want and watch it. You don't have to flip between three channels, wait for commercials, wait for other games to end, etc.
The leagues and/or teams are too greedy is more like it. You used to be able to watch sports on broadcast (antenna) TV, for free. Then cable channels started bidding up sports contracts, to motivate subscriptions. Then, more recently, streaming services have gotten in on the game. To try to cater to all of them, the leagues (and teams, depending on the sport) have decided to slice and dice the rights, so that some games end up on one platform, and others on another.
Not for nothing, but at some point this has to stop. My suspicion is that the leagues will launch their own streaming platforms, and allow people to buy either subscriptions to their team, or to the full season, perhaps with postseason packages as well. It's what likely SHOULD happen if you want to avoid alienating the fanbases, though in my experience, sports fans seem to be very much in the "thank you mistress, may I have another?" camp.
The idea of being expected to subscribe to 4+ services just to watch all of your team's games is absurd, especially when they're services that you're otherwise not interested in. Of course people are pirating things.
Not for nothing, but at some point this has to stop. My suspicion is that the leagues will launch their own streaming platforms, and allow people to buy either subscriptions to their team, or to the full season, perhaps with postseason packages as well. It's what likely SHOULD happen if you want to avoid alienating the fanbases, though in my experience, sports fans seem to be very much in the "thank you mistress, may I have another?" camp.
The idea of being expected to subscribe to 4+ services just to watch all of your team's games is absurd, especially when they're services that you're otherwise not interested in. Of course people are pirating things.
[deleted]
The speed of light compared to the size of the universe means that even if there is life out there they will not find out about use before we are gone. Even if they are going to all solar systems odds are against them finding us. Not to mention there is no reason to think they would survive a trip to us.
The problem is not the current size of the universe is big, it is that it is expanding with time. Aliens will still have to contend with the same physics laws because they are universal (in the tight meaning of universal here). We can actually model the recession velocity of emitted photon from a source (will be higher that speed of light) depending on our universe model.
To have aliens that are near enough so that they made contact with us ( through some signal not by abduction of humans) would mean they they very close on cosmological scale that they must be living within our detection capabilites. And with all our searches for life so far nearby we couldn't see a signal for unique civilization signature.
To have aliens that are near enough so that they made contact with us ( through some signal not by abduction of humans) would mean they they very close on cosmological scale that they must be living within our detection capabilites. And with all our searches for life so far nearby we couldn't see a signal for unique civilization signature.
Says, so confidently, the member of a species who hasn't yet discovered a form of FTL travel.
The general assumption is that any visitor from outside the solar system has found a unique solution to this enormous problem beyond our current level of understanding.
The general assumption is that any visitor from outside the solar system has found a unique solution to this enormous problem beyond our current level of understanding.
Says confidently someone who has studied physics enough to get a basic understanding of relativity.
I'm not very good at physics, but I know enough to state confidently that FTL will never be possible. Anyone who has studied physics will agree with me: while there is a lot we don't know, every possible answer to them still needs to fit with what we already know and you can't explain several things we know while also allowing for FTL.
I'm not very good at physics, but I know enough to state confidently that FTL will never be possible. Anyone who has studied physics will agree with me: while there is a lot we don't know, every possible answer to them still needs to fit with what we already know and you can't explain several things we know while also allowing for FTL.
We still can't explain the big bang, yet here we are. Just because something can't be explained with our current models or understanding, doesn't mean it's forever impossible.
what we cannot explain must still obey the rules we have figured out. Much as you might wish otherwise.
I have one thought on FTL travel. Creation of a “naked singularity” by spinning a black hole fast enough to counter the forces holding it together. However the singularity will remain incompatible with our universe, and will then spread at the speed of causality popping, destroying everything in its path. But within that new universe, it might be possible.
Is it possible that quantum entanglement could play a role here? Is travel actually necessary for information transfer? Obviously I know little to nothing about such things.
>Maybe the service providers are too greedy.
You have the issue correct, but not the cause. Greed? The rights to the sports are owned by different entities, sometimes locally. Should they just hand that over to Netflix or something? I feel like if they own the product, they should benefit from the media distribution.
You have the issue correct, but not the cause. Greed? The rights to the sports are owned by different entities, sometimes locally. Should they just hand that over to Netflix or something? I feel like if they own the product, they should benefit from the media distribution.
I don't know enough about the subject but I'm happy to learn! Right now it seems they're not benefitting at all, since a significant number of people are just pirating their content.
It seems like ideally you'd have a bunch of rights owners organize to create a single distributor that caters to viewer's desires. Maybe provide a seasonal pass to watch every game of your favorite team regardless of where they're playing? My understanding is that some sports require you to buy subscriptions with multiple different services if you want to follow your favorite team. This is obviously regarded as more favorable by the rights holder since they think they'll be able to get more money if people subscribe to their service rather than partnering with a different organization.
I don't know if this is applicable to the domain of sports, but in other industries sometimes there are local distributors which were relevant in the era of PPV or TV, but which have largely become obsolete in the modern era. Usually these entities become middle-men that just happened to keep owning the rights to media distribution, but which no longer do anything to provide value.
It seems like ideally you'd have a bunch of rights owners organize to create a single distributor that caters to viewer's desires. Maybe provide a seasonal pass to watch every game of your favorite team regardless of where they're playing? My understanding is that some sports require you to buy subscriptions with multiple different services if you want to follow your favorite team. This is obviously regarded as more favorable by the rights holder since they think they'll be able to get more money if people subscribe to their service rather than partnering with a different organization.
I don't know if this is applicable to the domain of sports, but in other industries sometimes there are local distributors which were relevant in the era of PPV or TV, but which have largely become obsolete in the modern era. Usually these entities become middle-men that just happened to keep owning the rights to media distribution, but which no longer do anything to provide value.
They are not benefiting from the pirate streams. however anyone who does find them legally - which is likely the majority who watch - they benefit from.
>Should they just hand that over to Netflix or something?
Not necessarily netflix but you should be able to watch all games of a given team and league on a single site/service. Something like a league wide streaming site isn't impossible. You shouldn't have to subscribe to 5 different providers to watch all of you teams games.
> The rights to the sports are owned by different entities, sometimes locally. Should
Sure but that doesn't mean the game can't be shown locally AND on a streaming site that carries all the leagues games.
Not necessarily netflix but you should be able to watch all games of a given team and league on a single site/service. Something like a league wide streaming site isn't impossible. You shouldn't have to subscribe to 5 different providers to watch all of you teams games.
> The rights to the sports are owned by different entities, sometimes locally. Should
Sure but that doesn't mean the game can't be shown locally AND on a streaming site that carries all the leagues games.
Apparently, they can make more money by splitting it up and selling exclusivity for certain games to certain entities. That, or the terms of the contracts were too long and they can't get out of a losing deal yet.
That was how NBA league pass used to work, I have watched my team for many seasons, modulo a decent VPN ;) With their recent change of CDN provider, I had to cancel my season subscription, which was a very reasonable $120 or so for all the games of all the teams, including the playoffs. Now I stream, and pay $0 :)
They could get together, form and fund a new company that provided unified access to all games/teams, and then distribute revenue fairly to themselves from that. IIRC that is what the MLB did with BAMTech that was acquired by Disney at a valuation of $5B
Even the music industry managed to solve this problem.
It's absolutely wild to me that there is a law on the books that says you can get imprisoned for up to 10 years for watching a stream of a sporting event or TV show on your laptop. Even with the strictest interpretation of the legal framework how is it not just a civil matter between the viewer and the rights holder? Trick question because I know the answer is "large corporations lobbied for it", but still sad..
10 year old me was terrified of the FBI warning message at the beginning of every VHS tape.
Have you seen the IT Crowd version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
Magnanimous of them. Here's what you can get arrested for though:
UK police launched an inquiry over offensive memes in a whatsapp chat. A man was later jailed for it:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-of...
UK police arrest a man over offensive tweet. 150 hours community service followed:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
UK police raiding a pub for displaying offensive dolls:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/golliwog-dolls-g...
UK police launched an inquiry over offensive memes in a whatsapp chat. A man was later jailed for it:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-of...
UK police arrest a man over offensive tweet. 150 hours community service followed:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
UK police raiding a pub for displaying offensive dolls:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/golliwog-dolls-g...
Don't forget "Police have seized my wife's laptop after one of her friends discovered and reported my wife's modded version of Skyrim."
https://old.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1974t9g/poli...
Decency laws are a joke.
https://old.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1974t9g/poli...
Decency laws are a joke.
Probably worth noting that the first was while serving as a police officer in a chat with colleagues.
> James Watts was serving with West Mercia police in 2020 when he shared the “grossly offensive” material in a group chat, which included former colleagues at a Warwickshire prison.
> James Watts was serving with West Mercia police in 2020 when he shared the “grossly offensive” material in a group chat, which included former colleagues at a Warwickshire prison.
Although the female police officer who did an identical thing was found not guilty after the prosecution "forgot" to follow it up:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11138385/Female-pol...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11138385/Female-pol...
I'm sure similar arrests in the Russian Federation also have caveats that are "worth noting".
But in the grand scheme of things, how noteworthy are they?
But in the grand scheme of things, how noteworthy are they?
I think the standards applied a normal citizen and a government official tasked with enforcing the law can reasonably be different. Most employers have standards and this person's employer was the government. Those standards are even more important because misconduct by government officials can lead to the kinds of injustice you seem to be worried about.
How are they simultaneously doing that bs while at the same time being more anti-trans than other western countries. Brits are so odd.
It's not generally about left-wing and right-wing, it's more that the UK is an authoritarian state, with relatively very few civil liberties compared to other western countries.
To give an example, when the government becomes upset with protests they just make them illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentencing_and_...
and if people in the UK strike too much, they just make that illegal too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikes_(Minimum_Service_Level...
To give an example, when the government becomes upset with protests they just make them illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentencing_and_...
and if people in the UK strike too much, they just make that illegal too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikes_(Minimum_Service_Level...
i don't see the contradiction
In theory, policing hate speech is quite left wing and hating trans people is quite right wing
Do you know any of the original Twitter accounts? I'm curious if any of them were pseudonymous in any way
The UK police is so massively underfunded since austerity started in 2010 that it's no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. They just don't have the manpower to enforce something so prevalent and hard to police.
The bigger surprise is that they have enough manpower to fill the freedom of information request to begin with. That's probably the reason the other two departments refused to answer.
The bigger surprise is that they have enough manpower to fill the freedom of information request to begin with. That's probably the reason the other two departments refused to answer.
> no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams.
I can only fathom "viewing illegal streams" leading to arrest in the case of CSAM. Regardless of any staffing or resources, it's a complete travesty to arrest anyone for using their internet connection to view lawfully produced content.
The power to restrain the physical liberty is a substantial corollary of the state's monopoly on violence, which should be employed when those arrested are a menace to other peaceful citizens.
I could see law enforcement getting involved in copyright crimes committed by commercial pirates, issuing fines to consumers or identifying them to the rights holders who can then seek redress in a court of law.
I can only fathom "viewing illegal streams" leading to arrest in the case of CSAM. Regardless of any staffing or resources, it's a complete travesty to arrest anyone for using their internet connection to view lawfully produced content.
The power to restrain the physical liberty is a substantial corollary of the state's monopoly on violence, which should be employed when those arrested are a menace to other peaceful citizens.
I could see law enforcement getting involved in copyright crimes committed by commercial pirates, issuing fines to consumers or identifying them to the rights holders who can then seek redress in a court of law.
There are companies selling boxes which stream massive amounts of material they don't have the rights to, for very large profits.
Some teenager watching the latest game of thrones (or whatever's hip nowadays) because their parent doesn't subscribe to Sky, or because they were out when it was on, isn't really the same thing.
Some teenager watching the latest game of thrones (or whatever's hip nowadays) because their parent doesn't subscribe to Sky, or because they were out when it was on, isn't really the same thing.
Nobody should ever be prosecuted for viewing or reading anything, anywhere. Doing so is a hallmark of a de-facto police state. It's a fundamental liberty we have forgotten about as the frog has slowly boiled over the last 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that viewing CSAM shouldn't be a crime? Is this really the logical end-point of this style of techo-libertarianism?
Yes. Imagine how easy it is to get people you dislike arrested with a bit[1] of CSAM.
On the other hand, I feel that creating and/or distributing CSAM should result in instant death for the creator.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon
EDIT: Creating and/or distributing.
On the other hand, I feel that creating and/or distributing CSAM should result in instant death for the creator.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon
EDIT: Creating and/or distributing.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
Bluetooth keystroke-injection in Android, Linux macOS and iOS:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182
These laws which criminalize viewing or reading things need to go now.
Bluetooth keystroke-injection in Android, Linux macOS and iOS:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182
These laws which criminalize viewing or reading things need to go now.
Yes, absolutely. It is today's equivalent of moral puritanism. It is absolutey inconceivable to me that a 21st Century society could be prosecuting people for viewing images. Distributing and making those images should remain a crime, of course. But absolutely not viewing. And we can continue to shut down the sites hosting such material, and encourage those who come across them to report them.
It is not acceptable to prosecute someone for the act of viewing a web site, regardless of it's content. Doing so is absolute totalitarianism.
In a free society, people should be able to browse any part of the Web without fear of punishment, it is fundamental. That includes exploring the darknet, one of the most interesting parts of the Web, without having to fear prosecution for unintentionally coming across child pornography.
It is not acceptable to prosecute someone for the act of viewing a web site, regardless of it's content. Doing so is absolute totalitarianism.
In a free society, people should be able to browse any part of the Web without fear of punishment, it is fundamental. That includes exploring the darknet, one of the most interesting parts of the Web, without having to fear prosecution for unintentionally coming across child pornography.
Yeah if it is tied to a larger / other crime I could see it happening if only because they're really looking into another issue.
> The UK police is so massively underfunded
Is it, though? According to the government itself, funding has increased from 12B in 2015 to 17B in 2023[0]. In real terms, the UK police now has more funding than it had pre-austerity (16.5B in 2023 money).
If they don't have the manpower, it isn't due to a lack of money.
[0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-...
Is it, though? According to the government itself, funding has increased from 12B in 2015 to 17B in 2023[0]. In real terms, the UK police now has more funding than it had pre-austerity (16.5B in 2023 money).
If they don't have the manpower, it isn't due to a lack of money.
[0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-...
> Is it, though?
It is.
Police cuts here in Scotland are dire. If your house gets broken in to they won't even visit.
Squatting is on the uprise including violent behaviour.
The list is too long to even mention.
https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-...
It is.
Police cuts here in Scotland are dire. If your house gets broken in to they won't even visit.
Squatting is on the uprise including violent behaviour.
The list is too long to even mention.
https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-...
> If your house gets broken in to they won't even visit
Did they ever accomplish much when they did visit?
Did they ever accomplish much when they did visit?
Why do you equate this to police being underfunded?
They just care about other things way more. Like people writing mean things on the internet.
They just care about other things way more. Like people writing mean things on the internet.
Exactly
https://archive.is/v1YwM
"..the teenager prosecuted for posting the lyrics of a rap song on her Instagram, because the music in question included the N-word. The 18-year-old girl, who has Asperger’s, was given an eight-week curfew and had to wear a tag, though the conviction was later overturned."
https://archive.is/v1YwM
"..the teenager prosecuted for posting the lyrics of a rap song on her Instagram, because the music in question included the N-word. The 18-year-old girl, who has Asperger’s, was given an eight-week curfew and had to wear a tag, though the conviction was later overturned."
I live in Scotland. Do you?
If you don't live here you have no say.
We have a collapsing healthcare, underfunded police force, rapid increase of homeless. Crime increasing.
Not only that I am on my local council so I get the local metrics from my local constabulary.
The police force is spared thin. And if you believe anything the tabloids say about "the police is fine" your a fool to believe so.
If your not from the UK get off your armchair, stop reporting he-say-she-says articles from bias tabloids and see for yourself if your going to argue.
Because I can post them too: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/05/police-still...
This month with crisis in title too.
If you don't live here you have no say.
We have a collapsing healthcare, underfunded police force, rapid increase of homeless. Crime increasing.
Not only that I am on my local council so I get the local metrics from my local constabulary.
The police force is spared thin. And if you believe anything the tabloids say about "the police is fine" your a fool to believe so.
If your not from the UK get off your armchair, stop reporting he-say-she-says articles from bias tabloids and see for yourself if your going to argue.
Because I can post them too: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/05/police-still...
This month with crisis in title too.
The same problems, with the same causes, are happening all over the western world. This idea that we all coincidentally face the same issues, but they're completely unrelated, is farcical. Our elites are globalised, so our response cannot be localised.
We have a collapsing healthcare, underfunded police force, rapid increase of homeless. Crime increasing.
Not unique to Scotland.
The police force is spared thin.
Not unique to Scotland.
If your not from the UK get off your armchair, stop reporting he-say-she-says articles from bias tabloids and see for yourself if your going to argue.
The police receive more funding than they used to. The numbers are there.
And again... this is not unique to Scotland.
We have a collapsing healthcare, underfunded police force, rapid increase of homeless. Crime increasing.
Not unique to Scotland.
The police force is spared thin.
Not unique to Scotland.
If your not from the UK get off your armchair, stop reporting he-say-she-says articles from bias tabloids and see for yourself if your going to argue.
The police receive more funding than they used to. The numbers are there.
And again... this is not unique to Scotland.
The money they received doesn't account for the inflation, system costs et cetera.
They may of got more money but the actual monetary value is a lot less. So yes, an increase in sum, but less in value.
Scotland is more less off than the UK. Scotland is UKs taking ground and always the first to get cuts, that and wales too.
They may of got more money but the actual monetary value is a lot less. So yes, an increase in sum, but less in value.
Scotland is more less off than the UK. Scotland is UKs taking ground and always the first to get cuts, that and wales too.
Three key issues that I'd raise:
When austerity kicked in, most forces offered redundancy to long-serving officers on good contracts. At the depths of the austerity era, the police practically gave up on investigation - outside of CID and other specialist department, the sheer volume of work forced the police into a purely reactive posture, dealing only with the most urgent and visible problems in the quickest way possible. When funding started to pick back up, they brought new and inexperienced staff into a dysfunctional service. The number of officers isn't down that much compared to pre-austerity levels, but huge amounts of institutional learning was lost.
A lack of resourcing and policy failures in the mental health system meant that the police - the public service of last resort - had to pick up the slack. It's now quite normal for officers to spend a substantial proportion of their time dealing with mental health calls that fundamentally aren't a police matter, or to spend an entire shift waiting to hand over an s.135/s.136 patient to a place of safety.
A lack of funding in the Courts Service and the Criminal Prosecution Service has created a huge bottleneck in the criminal justice pipeline. Cases are taking years to get to court, hearings are being repeatedly re-scheduled and the CPS have tacitly set a much higher bar on the quality of case they're willing to prosecute, all of which has an obvious impact on police resources, recidivism and the wellbeing of victims.
Dysfunction in British policing is part of a much broader dysfunction of the British state as a whole. There's a consistent story across the whole of the public sector - under-resourced services are dealing with an increasingly complex and demanding workload, because vulnerable people are being failed by multiple parts of the state simultaneously. Teachers rarely see students who are [i]just[/i] struggling in school; those kids invariably have home lives that are marred with multiple socioeconomic problems. Doctors spend most of their time treating people who aren't [i]just[/i] ill, but who are also poor and lonely and living in inadequate housing. If you'll forgive the double entendre, it's a death by a thousand cuts - services that don't have the resources to cope with their own workload are having to pick up the pieces for other services, creating a vicious circle of rising demand.
When austerity kicked in, most forces offered redundancy to long-serving officers on good contracts. At the depths of the austerity era, the police practically gave up on investigation - outside of CID and other specialist department, the sheer volume of work forced the police into a purely reactive posture, dealing only with the most urgent and visible problems in the quickest way possible. When funding started to pick back up, they brought new and inexperienced staff into a dysfunctional service. The number of officers isn't down that much compared to pre-austerity levels, but huge amounts of institutional learning was lost.
A lack of resourcing and policy failures in the mental health system meant that the police - the public service of last resort - had to pick up the slack. It's now quite normal for officers to spend a substantial proportion of their time dealing with mental health calls that fundamentally aren't a police matter, or to spend an entire shift waiting to hand over an s.135/s.136 patient to a place of safety.
A lack of funding in the Courts Service and the Criminal Prosecution Service has created a huge bottleneck in the criminal justice pipeline. Cases are taking years to get to court, hearings are being repeatedly re-scheduled and the CPS have tacitly set a much higher bar on the quality of case they're willing to prosecute, all of which has an obvious impact on police resources, recidivism and the wellbeing of victims.
Dysfunction in British policing is part of a much broader dysfunction of the British state as a whole. There's a consistent story across the whole of the public sector - under-resourced services are dealing with an increasingly complex and demanding workload, because vulnerable people are being failed by multiple parts of the state simultaneously. Teachers rarely see students who are [i]just[/i] struggling in school; those kids invariably have home lives that are marred with multiple socioeconomic problems. Doctors spend most of their time treating people who aren't [i]just[/i] ill, but who are also poor and lonely and living in inadequate housing. If you'll forgive the double entendre, it's a death by a thousand cuts - services that don't have the resources to cope with their own workload are having to pick up the pieces for other services, creating a vicious circle of rising demand.
2015 is a curious date to use.
It just happens to be when about 7 years of funding cuts ended.
Funding in 2009 was £19.3bn, which is £32bn adjusted for inflation to today.
22/23 funding was £24bn (£27bn inflation adjusted)
It just happens to be when about 7 years of funding cuts ended.
Funding in 2009 was £19.3bn, which is £32bn adjusted for inflation to today.
22/23 funding was £24bn (£27bn inflation adjusted)
2015 was the earliest date my source used for detailed data. Keep in mind that the pre-austerity "16.5B" figure I gave was for 2010 instead - which is before the funding cuts. I should've probably made that more explicit, yeah, shame I can't edit it anymore.
I can't find the figures for 2009 (this is most likely due to significant changes in the funding structure in 2015, see [1]), but according to [0] the number of police officers was about the same in 2010 as in 2009 - so the austerity cuts clearly only hit in 2011.
Also, my numbers are for England & Wales - because that's what was easily available. I'm not sure where you numbers come from, but they definitely don't match up with the England & Wales ones the UK government provide.
[0]: https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/bn20...
[1]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I can't find the figures for 2009 (this is most likely due to significant changes in the funding structure in 2015, see [1]), but according to [0] the number of police officers was about the same in 2010 as in 2009 - so the austerity cuts clearly only hit in 2011.
Also, my numbers are for England & Wales - because that's what was easily available. I'm not sure where you numbers come from, but they definitely don't match up with the England & Wales ones the UK government provide.
[0]: https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/bn20...
[1]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Conservatives laid off 20k experienced officers 2010-2017 then hired 20k inexperienced ones 2019-2023.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-are-the-co...
During this period the UK population has grown considerably, comparing officers or £ spent per capita is probably more appropriate.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-are-the-co...
During this period the UK population has grown considerably, comparing officers or £ spent per capita is probably more appropriate.
I thought the second half of the article basically disposed of the notion that lack of resources was the reason for refusing to answer.
> West Yorkshire Police received the same request (pdf) and was able to confirm that the words ‘UFO’, ‘UAP’, ‘ALIEN’ or ‘SPACESHIP’ appeared in log text 1805 times.
> West Yorkshire Police received the same request (pdf) and was able to confirm that the words ‘UFO’, ‘UAP’, ‘ALIEN’ or ‘SPACESHIP’ appeared in log text 1805 times.
They don't even turn up for burglaries, so I don't think someone is going to get their collar felt for watching a dodgy stream of Strickland/DuPlessis on their laptop.
Depends - the people lobbying for copyright law enforcement are rather more influential than the average person who gets burgled.
Then there is PICPU and presumably other specialist units that do nothing else.
Then there is PICPU and presumably other specialist units that do nothing else.
I think if you have a business selling iptv gear then you could get nicked, but I doubt if individual streamers would (unless it was in a pub).
why would the police be involved in the first place? how is this not a civil issue for the courts to decide? certainly that would be the case in the US.
The UK police is busy hunting people for their tweets.
Not surprising. Actually even speculating any damages for just viewing would likely be waste of time. Even if you could claim legal costs, the non claimable costs of overseeing such case would be substantially more than any penalties.
Those damages might even be zero, since the events are broadcast freely, the retail value is $0.
Another reason why all of our police forces should be genetically modifed.
That's surprisingly good news.
[deleted]
Illegal…streams? Why does the UK have police monitoring what streams people watch? That’s not good. UK wants thought police?
In many countries the police address complaints of illegal streaming from copyright holders reporting individual IP addresses accessing torrents they are sitting on. Why on earth would the UK have a policy that the Police's time could be spent actively detecting that activity. Like how is that ever a priority?
I am glad I left the UK long ago. When I go back I see cameras literally everywhere. Going on the motorway is insane, indeed any given road is peppered with speed cameras, but the motorway has taken it to the max.
It's well known that an individual can be tracked pretty much across the country on various CCTV. While this is great for crime detection it does have a social morale cost that is not considered as they quietly descend unimpeded into 1984.
Anyone see the debacle of the piano player being gaslit by a police officer dealing with Chinese people complaining he was filming them in public?
I am glad I left the UK long ago. When I go back I see cameras literally everywhere. Going on the motorway is insane, indeed any given road is peppered with speed cameras, but the motorway has taken it to the max.
It's well known that an individual can be tracked pretty much across the country on various CCTV. While this is great for crime detection it does have a social morale cost that is not considered as they quietly descend unimpeded into 1984.
Anyone see the debacle of the piano player being gaslit by a police officer dealing with Chinese people complaining he was filming them in public?
Yes, the UK wants thought police. They're slightly ahead of the other Western nations.
Apparently some UK police even think that "this isn't Communist China" is hate speech, an illegal utterance. They're wrong of course, but that won't stop them from trying to make trouble for you.
Even if they're wrong they can write you up for a "non-crime hate incident". You won't go to jail, but good luck finding employment as that shows up on background checks.
That’s kind of the point of the article… they aren’t.
I think what OP is saying is that it’s a bit crazy they’re asking the question in the first place. What is an “illegal stream” and why are we even talking about it in the first place? This shouldn’t even be something the police have control over at all.
Copyright violation. People restreaming a PPV boxing stream, for example.
Copyright violations are the distribution side, not the consumption side to my knowledge, those PPV Boxing streams don't get the viewers sued they get the distributors sued.
As mentioned in the article, in the UK it is nominally a crime to watch a pirate stream in order to avoid paying for the paid version of the stream. The relevant law is [1]. It is also illegal to distribute such a stream. Such streams are referred to as “illegal streams.”
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/notes/division/...
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/notes/division/...
This is the country where you need a license to watch live broadcast TV. They have some experience policing video.
(Regarding torrents, perhaps the most popular pirating medium...) In general, torrent users are consumers and distributors. Technically you can disable seeding, but peers can detect this and many will stop sharing with you.
pretty sure you’re right — but from the article
> A key component of an ongoing anti-piracy campaign in the UK includes sensitizing the public to the risk of being convicted for fraud offenses carrying prison sentences of up to 10 years. Not for getting involved in the supply or sale of pirate streams, but for simply watching them.
Pretty sure the premise of the article is to discredit “scare tactics” being used to claim otherwise by interested parties.
I’m a big fan of copyright. Not a big fan of scaremongering.
> A key component of an ongoing anti-piracy campaign in the UK includes sensitizing the public to the risk of being convicted for fraud offenses carrying prison sentences of up to 10 years. Not for getting involved in the supply or sale of pirate streams, but for simply watching them.
Pretty sure the premise of the article is to discredit “scare tactics” being used to claim otherwise by interested parties.
I’m a big fan of copyright. Not a big fan of scaremongering.
I'm a big fan of copyright, but the length is ridiculous.
For a live cultural events it should be 1 year max. 99% of the value of Man U vs Arsenal is in the first 24 hours, before the result is known.
For a live cultural events it should be 1 year max. 99% of the value of Man U vs Arsenal is in the first 24 hours, before the result is known.
You are not copying a stream
The law says what it says, without regard for your semantics.
The law says that downloading for free is not a crime and judges abide by this law and no citizen has gone to prison. So I download
They probably aren't actively monitoring it. However, if they bust a provider of illegal streams, they can just take their access logs and/or payment information to identify watchers.
They have police monitoring private Snapchat conversations
I think many governments do this for reasons other than piracy. Human trafficking, child abuse, and a myriad of scams, hate groups, etc.
Often it is illegal streams in pubs etc that are "monitored" (I.e. someone from a rights holder goes in and checks the watermarks on the screen). So not someone in their house, but a pub or bar streaming something that people want to watch without paying the normal fees.
Seriously? Do they do the same for places playing music? I thought the copyright holders pursued these offences, I just can't imagine a cop doing a patrol popping into pubs and bars and checking for streaming.
In the US it happens all the time that DirecTV hires PI's to check if bars are broadcasting sports (or music) without a license.
So not cops then. That's exactly what I was saying, the copyright owners usually chase this stuff, not the police. I just can't imagine uniform ever doing this sort of thing.
If you're curious, you should look up the story (I saw on HN years ago) about an apple R&D engineer leaving a next-gen iPhone prototype at a bar. Some guy found it and took it home and Apple got almost a SWAT team level response from the police to get it back. Also, the programmer who quit Goldman Sachs and they got the FBI to arrest and hold him for (IIRC) a whole year before he cleared his name. Allegedly he copied the entire trading system software to his personal drive, (and he did start his own HFT company) but his side was that people copied company code outside the network all the time and this was routine, and none of GS' code was found on his new company's server.
Big difference between a company verifying its own product distribution vs law enforcement being tasked with that. Not to mention that the concept of being fined or jailed for this is absolutely ridiculous.
They are already the thought police. Try standing silently praying (not that anyone could tell from looking at you) near an abortion clinic.
[deleted]
Oi m8, you got a loicence for that?
Now then, now then, what are we watchin’ ‘ere then?
[deleted]
[deleted]
The mention of UFOs is amusing. I'll admit that every time I hear about some UFO related story part of me really wishes it was real, just because it would be exciting to interact with aliens in our lifetime. Sadly it seems like UFO claims are usually hoaxes of some kind. Can you imagine actually having a UFO encounter and later having nobody else believe you? That would be quite devastating, I would imagine.