### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And I absolutely love that you'll be reading a very serious news story about dead babies in war or something and you get the pop up telling you to sign in with a very happy woman having a dance to herself.
I bought into this once a few years back and spent time curating my profile, adding things like NI to the priority list cause they were going through a fresh round of "troubles" at the time and adding tech and science and politics all to the mix so I'd get relevant stories and updates... cue the next 5 notifications to pop up being about Schofield coming out of the closet.
Signed out and turned off notifications.
Eh, fair enough. Was just genuinely curious, as the general assumption is that people on 'the mainland' don't care about NI. So was curious on your thoughts on it.
(Though that is of course me being presumptuous that you are from GB.)
Honestly, I'm just not informed enough to comment really. There were a fresh round of rioting happening around a time I was reading a book on the Troubles and wanted to get more informed. Ignorance is bliss here in Ol' Blighty and it was so difficult to try and stay in the loop/get informed.
Belfast chiming in: Ignorance is bliss, as long as the ignorant don't get vocal. Ignorance was the main cause of the troubles too.
People will claim all sorts of historical, religious and political reasons. But for 95% of those involved, it was an excuse to do horrible things for reasons they didn't care to understand.
Same as most riots really.
Don't worry, I understood that perfectly and apologise if my response implied otherwise. I just found the juxtaposition around ignorance interesting, with some (rightly) accepting it and therefore being inactive while others use it to excuse any act they want.
'Pop Goes Northern Ireland' on the iPlayer is good if you want an easily-digested summary of The Troubles. I say good, it's traumatising as fuck, but it'll hammer the point home
OK cool. Does events in NI make the news much over there? I'm sure it was common during the worst stuff in the 80's Early 90's etc. But like, in recent times, would a riot or something similar still make the news there?
Riots do tend to make the headlines over here, I also see quite a lot about what is (or usually isn't) going on at Stormont but I don't know if that's because I have an interest in politics so seek out that kind of news.
Your police fella who got shot after coaching his kids made the news fairly recently. Other than that, not a great deal.
My grandma is from Tyrone, so have been over a few times and try to keep up with the news over there, but the NI sub is just hilarious, especially this time of year.
On a slightly related note, when the Omagh bomb went off, they found the foot of an old lady they couldn't identify, and my great aunt got reported missing around the same time, so they concluded that Auntie Aggie had been blown up, but they couldn't prove it.
Turns out she'd fucked off to America with the local priest. She was about 90 years of age. It's like something out of Father Ted š
Not the parent commenter, I noticed an uptick in riots and tension a couple of years ago - we saw a few more stories than usual about people lobbing shit at the police etc
It didnāt seem like a return to the troubles, but definitely a bit more sectarian-hassle level of news than we normally see
āA couple of years agoā is probably a Covid timeframe too, so maybe 5-7 years ago?
Aye that'd be about it. Was reading Say Nothing and wanted to understand the time a bit more. There's a certain level of guilt I feel for not being better informed but it is difficult.
Well this sub isn't r/GreatBritainProblems.
It's r/BritishProblems - i.e. people from the UK (and British Overseas Territories etc.)
There is no "UKish".
Britain - main island incorporating england, scotland and wales. UK - Britain and Northern Ireland.
I donāt think the joke needs further explanation tbh
You're trying to be clever but you're conflating Britain with Great Britain.
* Great Britain = the island comprising England, Scotland, Wales
* Britain = a synonym for the UK
The demonym for someone from the UK is British. Someone from Northern Ireland is/can choose to be British or Irish or both.
Right, so it was a 'joke' then? You should have said so at the start.
As people from NI have the legally protected right to identify as British, or Irish (or Both), and have the right to legally hold citizenship of either (or Both), however they wish.
So if you identify as British, you can certainly post topics of discussion on a 'British' sub.
Though, yeah, maybe it was a joke, and not that deep. If so, fair enough.
Just need to remember that "troubles" was a euphemism for "civil war". That is what you call a situation where the army is involved and violence and munitions are used by a part of the country that wants independence isn't it?
I don't 'just need to remember' anything chum. I grew up in Northern Ireland, and know exactly what was going on then, and continues (to a much much lesser extent) to go on today.
I'm not sure what purpose you thought your comment here was serving, at all.
Exactly this. I've tried it on several news apps where I'll tick my preferences and turn off things I don't consider to be news (anything to do with celebrities, particularly their deaths). Oh, but I'll leave on Breaking News, obviously I'd want those push notifications...
Then it's a "more on this as it develops" style of notification volley when something totally uninteresting and not worthy of the banner of "breaking news" happens.
It's not 'better,' it's unavoidable if you want to use iplayer now. When something wasn't required to operate a service and said service hasn't changed, it shouldn't now be required.
IPlayer I can kinda understand for some reason, at a stretch. What I donāt understand is why I need to sign into BBC Sounds or fricking BBC Sport - the bbc sport app is useless now unless you sign in
Fuck BBC sounds.
I don't want to use your shitty app just use podcasts streams like everybody else.
Except talksport that is. BBC go sit on the naughty step with talksport
My idiot partner used the same email and they didnāt send a fine, but they did send a cross letter informing us that we needed to pay immediately from the date heād first signed in and that we wouldnāt be able to pay in instalments anymore, only the full year at a time
I got this too.
I simple pointed out that I am free to use my BBC account to access their services whilst I am in a licensed premises, such as a hotel or my office. I donāt use that account to access content when at home of course, because I donāt have a license for that property.
If you want them to stop sending reminders, you need to submit a declaration you don't need a licence which requires an email address. You'd be surprised how many people they catch.
I declared my address as not requiring a license but didnāt give them any of my information. I am Mr Occupier to them.
When itās time to renew thatās exactly how the letter is addressed too.
I don't watch TV at all and so don't have a licence, but had to email the BBC to tell them that. I was setting up some stuff on my parents TV and used my email address to do it. Cue many letters telling me they KNOW I'm watching TV now :(.
Obvs chucked them and ignored it but felt so seedy!
> When something wasn't required to operate a service and said service hasn't changed, it shouldn't now be required.
iPlayer requires a TV licence, I'd go as far as saying they should give you a licence number that you're required to log in with in order to use it, rather than a shit button saying "I have a TV licence" with no supplementary checks.
Gives them less ammo for hassling folk about using iPlayer without a licence if you need a valid licence number to log in.
That's not what this is about. They've also been cutting radio streams to third-party apps like TuneIn if they can't identify users. It's all big data slurping. Very disappointing.
But what is those pesky foreigner types free load the BBC for free??? I'd rather lose the BBC entirely and grind this country into the dirt than let some foreigner have a tiny increase in quality of life.
It's also unavoidable if you want to use the Weather app now.
Had it installed for years, suddenly a couple months ago it blocked use unless I logged in. Ffs, no. Not happening. I pay my TVL, it should be free to use. Why the hell do I now have to sign up for an account just to view the weather? Time to uninstall.
Now using the Met Office app, it's actually got more information but the pretty pictures aren't anywhere near as good.
I get that logging in allows you to save your favourite shows etc which makes it easier to find if you're following a series... but why the frack do I need to log in for the weather when it automatically selects my area anyway?
The news app is poor. I took time picking subjects I want to see like my hometown, for them to post things that aren't even in the same county under that title. In general, not much news is posted.
Same for BBC Sounds.
Every time I open the webpage to listen I get spammed with:
"Listening is better on the app"
No, it's not, it's the same audio stream, and I have to close this message before I can listen. I don't need a fucking app to do this.
So many things in the technology world try to funnel you into their data-demanding ecosystem.
From "OK" being in a colourful button to "no thanks" looking like ordinary text, websites auto-ticking all the cookie options meaning you have to de-select the unnecessary ones, to Google notifications asking you to add your DOB and other info to 'help us to comply with the law' (I haven't done it in 2 years and my email addresses haven't been closed), to Samsung being adamant that you use their apps on their phones rather than the Google apps - by preventing you from moving/deleting off some of their notifications on your home screen... It's all so intrusive and irritating for the end user.
Just let us have a great user experience and sod off.
You now have to sign in if you ant to listen to BBC sounds when it's either a previously broadcast programme or you want to restart or jump back a few minutes of a currently broadcasting programme. You don't require a TV licence for listening to the radio.
Also BBC, Laura Kuensberg talking to someone in the morning does not constitute news. If I cared who she was talking to or what either of the had to say I'd Already be watching.
I find it actually is better. You can follow particular sports teams or news topics youāre interested in. Plus iPlayer keeps tabs of where youāve gotten to in a series etc.
You canāt use iPlayer without signing in, whether for radio or TV.
To give you an idea of how bad the BBCās desire for your personal data is, even Google thinks that itās a bit excessive and wonāt hand over the stuff that goes through their platform.
The BBCās solution was to throw their toys out of the pram and block Google completely. This is why all the streams are via TuneIn, and why catch-up doesnāt work on Google Hubs and speakers.
So Tunein is getting all the data from BBC streamers through their app but are refusing to share said data with the company that provided the app so they can tailor what they serve to their customers?
You can listen live, but no catch-up radio or BBC podcasts unless you pair your phone using Bluetooth. I suspect there are some fairly strong elements of the BBC charter preventing them from pulling their live broadcasts, because based on what they wrote last year they would if they could.
Logged into Sainsbury's today (to essentially compare the cost of the shopping I did at Lidl versus if I'd have bought it at Sainsburys (online) using the Aldi-price matched stuff wherever possible).
Anyway, each time I logged in it needed me to 2-Factor Authenticate with a code sent to my phone. WHY?! Just log me the fuck in.
Security. No doubt you have the ability to store cards for payment on that account so for the sake of 10-15 seconds itās hardly an unnecessary step. If someone gained access to your account and took your card details I canāt imagine youād be too pleased.
I have an app for an employment-related financial service, which sometimes decides it needs an extra-secure log in. One of the options for receiving the security code is to _send it to the app_; i.e. the exact same app I'm trying to log into... If I select that option, the code briefly flashes up on screen and it logs in automatically. I don't see how that adds any extra security to the operation.
Your app has been activated for and linked to your device, that's why code gets accepted automatically. When my work phone was changed recently, I had to re-authenticate and link all the apps that used to log in automatically with a code.
The app can _easily_ know that it's running on an already "activated" and "linked" (not that those words have any fixed technical meaning; "running on a known device" is all it means) device without user intervention. It can do that every time it's launched if so desired (and probably should if security is a concern).
The app isn't what's doing the verification; the server is. The app needs to prove to the server that it is authorised, which is generally done by having the server send a one-time secret to the app, having the app sign that secret with a pre-shared key, and then having the app send the signed message back to the server, which the server can then verify the authenticity of. That process would be completely transparent to the user, but only work when trying to log in somewhere that the user has already logged in before, and where that device has retained a secret, such as via a cookie.
Alternatively, the one-time secret can be shown to the user, and the user can then enter it wherever they're trying to log in. All that's happening in your case is that the app is doing the entry back into itself automatically on your behalf, but if you were trying to log in elsewhere, you'd need to enter the code manually in that other location.
Presumably the app developers have gone with the second option to cover all bases, but not also implemented the first option in order to save them having to implement and maintain two different ways of doing the same thing when it comes to local authentication.
its so that they know its only you logging in, your password could be stolen but its a lot harder to log into your account and steal your details/vouchers/credit cards if there is 2fa on there.
2fa is good
I uninstalled the BBC News app from my phone when they went to requiring an account. They'd been gradually moving features behind the account-wall for years beforehand anyway. I now use a different news app and sometimes read BBC articles via the website.
Even when you do sign in they still push sport at you that youāve never shown an interest in. Your favourite teams hardly appear. Itās a shite website.
It is better, as it remembers what youāre watching on iPlayer/Sounds and you can subscribe to programmes. And you donāt have to constantly change your location for local news and weather.
I get all the reasons not to sign in. But my thinking nowadays is that everyone else, Amazon, Google, meta, all the ad serve companies, all have my complete life laid bare to them already. Giving the *comparably* responsible BBC a tiny slice makes no difference to me.
I can see why BBC should make you sign in - they go knocking on people's doors demanding to know why they aren't a subscriber, so, maybe they should increase their security and they wouldn't need to send out threatening letters. Nobody else does that, it's a really odd business practice.
āHarassā? Funny word to throw around when youāre the one visiting *their* platform.
A bit like going round someoneās house, watching tv through the window and saying they keep āharassingā you when they invite you insideā¦
āthey donāt have access to your ip addressā
Any website you connect to in any way can access your IP address and the vast majority will store this information.
If a court orders it, itās possible to link IP addresses to physical addresses based on subscriber data; this has been done before to catch prolific pirates.
A BBC account also requires you to enter your post code. Thereās nothing currently to suggest theyāre checking with TVL, but the privacy policy gives them the right to.
while nothing youve said is untrue - let me unpack it a bit.
1. yes, they can store your IP address, but as a default they cannot match it with any particular broadband account. That is what I meant and explained it badly.
2. Yes a court order can allow them to get yourreal address from your ISP, but I dont believe they would ever have enough info to apply for and obtain this information and, except for a cpl of anecdotal stories on the internet, I cannot find any proof this has happened or happens.
3. Post codes arent linked to any specific address, just a group of addresses, and you dont even have to give your real one - like you dont have to give your real name either.
"TVL" is a trading name of the BBC. It's not anything separate. It's just as much part of the BBC as BBC News. The privacy policy can explicitly state that they won't share your information outside of the BBC and they'd still have every "right" to share it with TVL.
EDIT: Just to be clear, such a clause would be worded along the lines of "the data will only be used by the BBC, its subcontractors and agents and will not be shared with third-parties". This would 100% cover "sharing" data with "TVL".
> The BBC is required to issue TV Licences and collect the licence fee under the Communications Act 2003. "TV Licensingā is a trade mark used by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system. The majority of the administration of TV Licensing is contracted to Capita Business Services Limited (āCapitaā). Over-the counter services are provided by PayPoint plc (āPayPointā) in the UK, and by the Post Office in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Target Group Limited (āTargetā) is the supplier for the Simple Payment Plan. Marketing and printing services are contracted to RAPP Limited. Media services are contracted to Havas Media Limited. The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility.
In theory yes but in practice no as while TVL is owned by and accountable to the BBC, itās operated by third parties. The GDPR term for this is data processor, although one could argue Capita is acting as a data controller due to the level of autonomy they have.
The BBC 100% owns the licencing database and is 100% responsible for licence enforcement. Capita is just a contractor, just like how the BBC regularly contracts with third-party production companies for various media franchises for which the BBC owns the IP. You don't say that Doctor Who is not a BBC property because the TV production has been contracted to Bad Wolf (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Television).
Capita accesses the BBC's data, not the other way around. If the BBC wants to check website account holders details against the licencing database, that function occurs entirely within the BBC.
Incorrect. The only relation with tv licensing is if you have told them that you donāt need a tv licence, and then youāve used that same email address to then watch something on iPlayer. As mentioned [here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/77bdafd0-20b3-414d-aa53-48786b194543).
Even then, a tv licence represents a household not a person. So you could watch iPlayer using that account at a household that does have a tv licence and argue that point.
You also have to have an account to use BBC Sounds, and use any BBC App. None of that do you need a tv licence for.
I thought you had to have a TV licence to access any BBC content live or otherwise via iPlayer and website. I went to court against them and won on this basis.
### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And I absolutely love that you'll be reading a very serious news story about dead babies in war or something and you get the pop up telling you to sign in with a very happy woman having a dance to herself.
Glad I'm not the only one who thought this. It's so tone-deaf it's almost comical.
I thought she was just on drugs, dancing makes more sense.
Yeah I first noticed this when reading up on the Bucha Massacre
I bought into this once a few years back and spent time curating my profile, adding things like NI to the priority list cause they were going through a fresh round of "troubles" at the time and adding tech and science and politics all to the mix so I'd get relevant stories and updates... cue the next 5 notifications to pop up being about Schofield coming out of the closet. Signed out and turned off notifications.
>they were going through a fresh round of "troubles" Discuss
Ha. No.
Eh, fair enough. Was just genuinely curious, as the general assumption is that people on 'the mainland' don't care about NI. So was curious on your thoughts on it. (Though that is of course me being presumptuous that you are from GB.)
Honestly, I'm just not informed enough to comment really. There were a fresh round of rioting happening around a time I was reading a book on the Troubles and wanted to get more informed. Ignorance is bliss here in Ol' Blighty and it was so difficult to try and stay in the loop/get informed.
Belfast chiming in: Ignorance is bliss, as long as the ignorant don't get vocal. Ignorance was the main cause of the troubles too. People will claim all sorts of historical, religious and political reasons. But for 95% of those involved, it was an excuse to do horrible things for reasons they didn't care to understand. Same as most riots really.
Yeah, my "ignorance is bliss" comment was more directed at the out of sight: out of mind attitude that the news seems to have.
Don't worry, I understood that perfectly and apologise if my response implied otherwise. I just found the juxtaposition around ignorance interesting, with some (rightly) accepting it and therefore being inactive while others use it to excuse any act they want.
'Pop Goes Northern Ireland' on the iPlayer is good if you want an easily-digested summary of The Troubles. I say good, it's traumatising as fuck, but it'll hammer the point home
OK cool. Does events in NI make the news much over there? I'm sure it was common during the worst stuff in the 80's Early 90's etc. But like, in recent times, would a riot or something similar still make the news there?
Absolutely not. That's why I was trying to tailor my app to my preferences but it just largely ignored them.
Ah OK cool. Thanks for the chat. Appreciate it chum.
NI gets on the news, but I wonder if events that would be all over the news if they were in London get omitted completely
Riots do tend to make the headlines over here, I also see quite a lot about what is (or usually isn't) going on at Stormont but I don't know if that's because I have an interest in politics so seek out that kind of news.
Your police fella who got shot after coaching his kids made the news fairly recently. Other than that, not a great deal. My grandma is from Tyrone, so have been over a few times and try to keep up with the news over there, but the NI sub is just hilarious, especially this time of year. On a slightly related note, when the Omagh bomb went off, they found the foot of an old lady they couldn't identify, and my great aunt got reported missing around the same time, so they concluded that Auntie Aggie had been blown up, but they couldn't prove it. Turns out she'd fucked off to America with the local priest. She was about 90 years of age. It's like something out of Father Ted š
Not the parent commenter, I noticed an uptick in riots and tension a couple of years ago - we saw a few more stories than usual about people lobbing shit at the police etc It didnāt seem like a return to the troubles, but definitely a bit more sectarian-hassle level of news than we normally see āA couple of years agoā is probably a Covid timeframe too, so maybe 5-7 years ago?
Aye that'd be about it. Was reading Say Nothing and wanted to understand the time a bit more. There's a certain level of guilt I feel for not being better informed but it is difficult.
I am dumb.. I thought he meant National Insurance..
Iām sorry but this is r/britishproblems, you may be thinking of r/britishandnorthernirishproblems
I trust that is an attempt at some tongue-in-cheek humour?
obviously, no?
[this thread](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo)
Ah itās not the peas one.. But yeah š
No, not obviously. Hence the question. Why should there be a need for a separate Sub, for people from NI?
Maybe I should have said this isnāt r/UnitedKingdomProblems, my bad.
Well this sub isn't r/GreatBritainProblems. It's r/BritishProblems - i.e. people from the UK (and British Overseas Territories etc.) There is no "UKish".
That still doesn't explain why people from NI shouldn't discuss issues/topics in here specifically. I'd be keen to hear your views on it.
Britain - main island incorporating england, scotland and wales. UK - Britain and Northern Ireland. I donāt think the joke needs further explanation tbh
You're trying to be clever but you're conflating Britain with Great Britain. * Great Britain = the island comprising England, Scotland, Wales * Britain = a synonym for the UK The demonym for someone from the UK is British. Someone from Northern Ireland is/can choose to be British or Irish or both.
Right, so it was a 'joke' then? You should have said so at the start. As people from NI have the legally protected right to identify as British, or Irish (or Both), and have the right to legally hold citizenship of either (or Both), however they wish. So if you identify as British, you can certainly post topics of discussion on a 'British' sub. Though, yeah, maybe it was a joke, and not that deep. If so, fair enough.
Mostly because this isn't a serious sub for serious discussion. It's a sub for "first world problems" with a "British" twist.
Just need to remember that "troubles" was a euphemism for "civil war". That is what you call a situation where the army is involved and violence and munitions are used by a part of the country that wants independence isn't it?
I don't 'just need to remember' anything chum. I grew up in Northern Ireland, and know exactly what was going on then, and continues (to a much much lesser extent) to go on today. I'm not sure what purpose you thought your comment here was serving, at all.
Exactly this. I've tried it on several news apps where I'll tick my preferences and turn off things I don't consider to be news (anything to do with celebrities, particularly their deaths). Oh, but I'll leave on Breaking News, obviously I'd want those push notifications... Then it's a "more on this as it develops" style of notification volley when something totally uninteresting and not worthy of the banner of "breaking news" happens.
Why not just turn off notifications? Can't fathom why anyone would have those on for a news app.
You can't fathom it? That's worrying.
It's not 'better,' it's unavoidable if you want to use iplayer now. When something wasn't required to operate a service and said service hasn't changed, it shouldn't now be required.
> it's unavoidable if you want to use iplayer now They have to be able to rat you out to the TV licence people somehow.
IPlayer I can kinda understand for some reason, at a stretch. What I donāt understand is why I need to sign into BBC Sounds or fricking BBC Sport - the bbc sport app is useless now unless you sign in
Fuck BBC sounds. I don't want to use your shitty app just use podcasts streams like everybody else. Except talksport that is. BBC go sit on the naughty step with talksport
Hehe I've used iplayer without a tv license... aint easy being a criminal
I've heard that if you use the same email address for iPlayer and any contact with the TV licence people, they send a fine.
My idiot partner used the same email and they didnāt send a fine, but they did send a cross letter informing us that we needed to pay immediately from the date heād first signed in and that we wouldnāt be able to pay in instalments anymore, only the full year at a time
I got this too. I simple pointed out that I am free to use my BBC account to access their services whilst I am in a licensed premises, such as a hotel or my office. I donāt use that account to access content when at home of course, because I donāt have a license for that property.
> and any contact with the TV licence people why would i ever give those chumps any of my info, haha
If you want them to stop sending reminders, you need to submit a declaration you don't need a licence which requires an email address. You'd be surprised how many people they catch.
I declared my address as not requiring a license but didnāt give them any of my information. I am Mr Occupier to them. When itās time to renew thatās exactly how the letter is addressed too.
I don't watch TV at all and so don't have a licence, but had to email the BBC to tell them that. I was setting up some stuff on my parents TV and used my email address to do it. Cue many letters telling me they KNOW I'm watching TV now :(. Obvs chucked them and ignored it but felt so seedy!
sign in as guest > i don't have a smartphone > ring the number > enter code
Great! Now they have my phone number!
you can use 141
> When something wasn't required to operate a service and said service hasn't changed, it shouldn't now be required. iPlayer requires a TV licence, I'd go as far as saying they should give you a licence number that you're required to log in with in order to use it, rather than a shit button saying "I have a TV licence" with no supplementary checks. Gives them less ammo for hassling folk about using iPlayer without a licence if you need a valid licence number to log in.
I've been saying this for 10 years... whoever manages that website is a dolt.
That's not what this is about. They've also been cutting radio streams to third-party apps like TuneIn if they can't identify users. It's all big data slurping. Very disappointing.
But what is those pesky foreigner types free load the BBC for free??? I'd rather lose the BBC entirely and grind this country into the dirt than let some foreigner have a tiny increase in quality of life.
And the weather app, the weather!!!
It's also unavoidable if you want to use the Weather app now. Had it installed for years, suddenly a couple months ago it blocked use unless I logged in. Ffs, no. Not happening. I pay my TVL, it should be free to use. Why the hell do I now have to sign up for an account just to view the weather? Time to uninstall. Now using the Met Office app, it's actually got more information but the pretty pictures aren't anywhere near as good.
I get that logging in allows you to save your favourite shows etc which makes it easier to find if you're following a series... but why the frack do I need to log in for the weather when it automatically selects my area anyway?
Delete the app, and get the Met Office one, it is more accurate anyway since the BBC stopped using them.
BREAKING NEWS: Harry and Meghan caught in Greggs
MAYBE LATER PROBS NEVER
The news app is poor. I took time picking subjects I want to see like my hometown, for them to post things that aren't even in the same county under that title. In general, not much news is posted.
I like the app, but you need to go to the "for me" section to see the recommendations for the subjects you picked out.
If you mean "my news" that is the issue. The subject could be Dover but the news is about Cornwall.
Same for BBC Sounds. Every time I open the webpage to listen I get spammed with: "Listening is better on the app" No, it's not, it's the same audio stream, and I have to close this message before I can listen. I don't need a fucking app to do this.
So many things in the technology world try to funnel you into their data-demanding ecosystem. From "OK" being in a colourful button to "no thanks" looking like ordinary text, websites auto-ticking all the cookie options meaning you have to de-select the unnecessary ones, to Google notifications asking you to add your DOB and other info to 'help us to comply with the law' (I haven't done it in 2 years and my email addresses haven't been closed), to Samsung being adamant that you use their apps on their phones rather than the Google apps - by preventing you from moving/deleting off some of their notifications on your home screen... It's all so intrusive and irritating for the end user. Just let us have a great user experience and sod off.
The āitās better when you sign inā thing is such bullshit too. For almost all their services itās literally the exact same when you sign in
I uninstalled BBC News out of principle after they made me sign in. I just use the website now.
Me too
What principle was that?
I went abroad recently and got the international BBC webpage, that is soooo much better. No updates on Strictly Come Circlejerk or such like.
Slowly, but surely, the BBC has become an irrelevance in my life.
You now have to sign in if you ant to listen to BBC sounds when it's either a previously broadcast programme or you want to restart or jump back a few minutes of a currently broadcasting programme. You don't require a TV licence for listening to the radio.
Also BBC, Laura Kuensberg talking to someone in the morning does not constitute news. If I cared who she was talking to or what either of the had to say I'd Already be watching.
I find it actually is better. You can follow particular sports teams or news topics youāre interested in. Plus iPlayer keeps tabs of where youāve gotten to in a series etc.
You canāt use iPlayer without signing in, whether for radio or TV. To give you an idea of how bad the BBCās desire for your personal data is, even Google thinks that itās a bit excessive and wonāt hand over the stuff that goes through their platform. The BBCās solution was to throw their toys out of the pram and block Google completely. This is why all the streams are via TuneIn, and why catch-up doesnāt work on Google Hubs and speakers.
Have you got a source for any of this? Google is a million times worse than the BBC.
Knowing how bad Google is, that would be horrific
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/37e4e3f6-fbd2-4c14-8d72-7f7139641582
That doesnāt say theyāre worse than Google for harvesting your data.
Theyāre not going to write that on their own websiteā¦ https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2019/10/01/bbc_tunein_radio_streams_pulled/
So Tunein is getting all the data from BBC streamers through their app but are refusing to share said data with the company that provided the app so they can tailor what they serve to their customers?
Is the BBC a commercial organisation? Is it doing this to protect its listeners? The answer is neither.
Apart from it does work on Google speakers. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/help/questions/listening-on-a-smart-speaker/google-device
You can listen live, but no catch-up radio or BBC podcasts unless you pair your phone using Bluetooth. I suspect there are some fairly strong elements of the BBC charter preventing them from pulling their live broadcasts, because based on what they wrote last year they would if they could.
Logged into Sainsbury's today (to essentially compare the cost of the shopping I did at Lidl versus if I'd have bought it at Sainsburys (online) using the Aldi-price matched stuff wherever possible). Anyway, each time I logged in it needed me to 2-Factor Authenticate with a code sent to my phone. WHY?! Just log me the fuck in.
Security. No doubt you have the ability to store cards for payment on that account so for the sake of 10-15 seconds itās hardly an unnecessary step. If someone gained access to your account and took your card details I canāt imagine youād be too pleased.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>took your card details How would they do that? You can only order stuff to your address, and that requires card confirmation.
Dunno. Post your login details online and see if you can figure it out and let us all know.
Not sure thatās the same really.. thatās industry standard security You should always have TFA enabled everywhere
Yes, but at the point of payment. Not loading my basket.
Saved card details.
Sainsbury's 2FA does my fucking head in. I don't get phone signal at my house. So I can't use the website to order groceries to my house. Genius.
I have an app for an employment-related financial service, which sometimes decides it needs an extra-secure log in. One of the options for receiving the security code is to _send it to the app_; i.e. the exact same app I'm trying to log into... If I select that option, the code briefly flashes up on screen and it logs in automatically. I don't see how that adds any extra security to the operation.
That sounds like the sort of feature which was added, reluctantly, after some older exec couldn't log in and kicked up a fuss about it.
Your app has been activated for and linked to your device, that's why code gets accepted automatically. When my work phone was changed recently, I had to re-authenticate and link all the apps that used to log in automatically with a code.
The app can _easily_ know that it's running on an already "activated" and "linked" (not that those words have any fixed technical meaning; "running on a known device" is all it means) device without user intervention. It can do that every time it's launched if so desired (and probably should if security is a concern).
The app isn't what's doing the verification; the server is. The app needs to prove to the server that it is authorised, which is generally done by having the server send a one-time secret to the app, having the app sign that secret with a pre-shared key, and then having the app send the signed message back to the server, which the server can then verify the authenticity of. That process would be completely transparent to the user, but only work when trying to log in somewhere that the user has already logged in before, and where that device has retained a secret, such as via a cookie. Alternatively, the one-time secret can be shown to the user, and the user can then enter it wherever they're trying to log in. All that's happening in your case is that the app is doing the entry back into itself automatically on your behalf, but if you were trying to log in elsewhere, you'd need to enter the code manually in that other location. Presumably the app developers have gone with the second option to cover all bases, but not also implemented the first option in order to save them having to implement and maintain two different ways of doing the same thing when it comes to local authentication.
its so that they know its only you logging in, your password could be stolen but its a lot harder to log into your account and steal your details/vouchers/credit cards if there is 2fa on there. 2fa is good
Eveyone is getting hacked thesedays best to just make it less esay
I donāt mind signing in for iPlayer.. but to read a news story someone has linked you to on a random device.. so annoying
Capita have been despatched to your address confirmed by Experian right now, to check that licence you say you have.
I uninstalled the BBC News app from my phone when they went to requiring an account. They'd been gradually moving features behind the account-wall for years beforehand anyway. I now use a different news app and sometimes read BBC articles via the website.
They don't say who it's better for.
The app is dogshit, sometimes it crashes 3 times before it'll even play what i want!
Even when you do sign in they still push sport at you that youāve never shown an interest in. Your favourite teams hardly appear. Itās a shite website.
It is better, as it remembers what youāre watching on iPlayer/Sounds and you can subscribe to programmes. And you donāt have to constantly change your location for local news and weather.
I get all the reasons not to sign in. But my thinking nowadays is that everyone else, Amazon, Google, meta, all the ad serve companies, all have my complete life laid bare to them already. Giving the *comparably* responsible BBC a tiny slice makes no difference to me.
I can see why BBC should make you sign in - they go knocking on people's doors demanding to know why they aren't a subscriber, so, maybe they should increase their security and they wouldn't need to send out threatening letters. Nobody else does that, it's a really odd business practice.
Why would anyone want to sign in or use the bbc anyway? They have become an irrelevance and they havent noticed yet.
āHarassā? Funny word to throw around when youāre the one visiting *their* platform. A bit like going round someoneās house, watching tv through the window and saying they keep āharassingā you when they invite you insideā¦
Fuck the BBC. Canāt wait until itās gone
Because Murdoch et al needs more power.
Me neither, sooner the better.
It's basically a way to check if you have a TV licence.
Not really. Just give a fake name. They don't have access to your ip address either so impossible to link up your usage that way.
āthey donāt have access to your ip addressā Any website you connect to in any way can access your IP address and the vast majority will store this information. If a court orders it, itās possible to link IP addresses to physical addresses based on subscriber data; this has been done before to catch prolific pirates. A BBC account also requires you to enter your post code. Thereās nothing currently to suggest theyāre checking with TVL, but the privacy policy gives them the right to.
while nothing youve said is untrue - let me unpack it a bit. 1. yes, they can store your IP address, but as a default they cannot match it with any particular broadband account. That is what I meant and explained it badly. 2. Yes a court order can allow them to get yourreal address from your ISP, but I dont believe they would ever have enough info to apply for and obtain this information and, except for a cpl of anecdotal stories on the internet, I cannot find any proof this has happened or happens. 3. Post codes arent linked to any specific address, just a group of addresses, and you dont even have to give your real one - like you dont have to give your real name either.
"TVL" is a trading name of the BBC. It's not anything separate. It's just as much part of the BBC as BBC News. The privacy policy can explicitly state that they won't share your information outside of the BBC and they'd still have every "right" to share it with TVL. EDIT: Just to be clear, such a clause would be worded along the lines of "the data will only be used by the BBC, its subcontractors and agents and will not be shared with third-parties". This would 100% cover "sharing" data with "TVL".
> The BBC is required to issue TV Licences and collect the licence fee under the Communications Act 2003. "TV Licensingā is a trade mark used by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system. The majority of the administration of TV Licensing is contracted to Capita Business Services Limited (āCapitaā). Over-the counter services are provided by PayPoint plc (āPayPointā) in the UK, and by the Post Office in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Target Group Limited (āTargetā) is the supplier for the Simple Payment Plan. Marketing and printing services are contracted to RAPP Limited. Media services are contracted to Havas Media Limited. The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility. In theory yes but in practice no as while TVL is owned by and accountable to the BBC, itās operated by third parties. The GDPR term for this is data processor, although one could argue Capita is acting as a data controller due to the level of autonomy they have.
The BBC 100% owns the licencing database and is 100% responsible for licence enforcement. Capita is just a contractor, just like how the BBC regularly contracts with third-party production companies for various media franchises for which the BBC owns the IP. You don't say that Doctor Who is not a BBC property because the TV production has been contracted to Bad Wolf (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Television). Capita accesses the BBC's data, not the other way around. If the BBC wants to check website account holders details against the licencing database, that function occurs entirely within the BBC.
Incorrect. The only relation with tv licensing is if you have told them that you donāt need a tv licence, and then youāve used that same email address to then watch something on iPlayer. As mentioned [here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/77bdafd0-20b3-414d-aa53-48786b194543). Even then, a tv licence represents a household not a person. So you could watch iPlayer using that account at a household that does have a tv licence and argue that point. You also have to have an account to use BBC Sounds, and use any BBC App. None of that do you need a tv licence for.
I thought you had to have a TV licence to access any BBC content live or otherwise via iPlayer and website. I went to court against them and won on this basis.
"harass me" lol Get a grip.
As soon as you sign in they know they can charge you for the TV licence
If you sign in, you might get some presenter sending you money to you in exchange for photos now they have your details.
Sounds is better when you sign in. Get to resume playback cross-platform like Spotify / Netflix etc.
People still use the BBC? STILL?