bbc – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Now That Elon Musk Is Labeling NPR And The BBC As ‘Government Funded,’ Shouldn’t He Do The Same For Tesla, SpaceX, And Twitter?

from the kneejerk-decision-making-makes-you-a-jerk dept

Never a dull moment in Elonland. Last week, as you’ll recall, he decided that NPR should be labeled as “state-affiliated media” even though NPR was literally Twitter’s prime example of what kinds of independent media outlets don’t deserve that label.

What seemed to have happened is that some of the weird coterie of foolish people who Musk follows were doing one of their usual attacks on “the mainstream media” and someone highlighted how NPR should be seen as a government propaganda outfit, so without learning anything, Elon had that label applied to NPR.

But, there were two important things that Elon could have, and probably should have, learned before doing that and both of those things were easily discoverable with a simple Google search or by, you know, talking to people who work for him (though, it’s likely he fired all the people who could have explained this to him).

First: the reason for the “state affiliated” label was to highlight news media that were pure propaganda outfits that simply parrot government messaging, and are not actually independent journalists. The people who set that up could have told Musk the reasoning for it if he hadn’t fired all of them.

The whole point of “state-affiliated media” label was to warn users about publications that look perfectly legit, but where someone happening upon them might not realize that they were not editorially independent, and were a direct mouthpiece of the government.

NPR report Bobby Allyn got one ex-Twitter employee to explain:

A former Twitter executive who helped develop the platform’s state-affiliation labels said that editorial independence had long been the deciding factor in whether to issue the designation.

The People’s Daily in China, and Sputnik and RT in Russia, for instance, received the labels, but outlets with editorial autonomy that received some government funding did not.

“In the end, [we] felt that the most fair and balanced way to implement labels was to call out state connections that had a demonstrated track record of influencing content of news reporting,” the former Twitter executive said.

That meant that NPR, the government-funded outlet Voice of America, “and even Al Jazeera didn’t qualify under our designation,” the former employee said.

The point of the labels, the former executive said, was to help users understand what they’re seeing on the platform.

“That matters a lot when you see an outlet like Xinhua, have never heard of it, and it looks like a totally legit news source,” the former executive said about the state news agency that routinely pushes the official line of China’s President Xi Jinping.

Besides potentially besmirching the reputation of NPR, the label influences the reach of the network’s tweets.

Under Twitter’s rules, and according to the former executive, accounts that have been given the state-affiliated mark are not recommended or amplified on the platform — a process known as “downranking” among social media insiders.

For example, if someone who did not already follow Russian publications like RT or Sputnik searched for the government-backed publications on Twitter, the publications were not suggested, according to a second former Twitter employee who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Accounts deemed affiliated with government, the employee said, were not allowed to advertise on Twitter. A list of what accounts received the label was never publicly revealed.

The other piece of information, Musk could have easily Googled, which Allyn pointed out in a separate interview he did on NPR in which he recounted the details of an email conversation he and Musk had over the past few days:

Well, he didn’t seem to understand the difference between public media and state-controlled media. He asked me at one point, quote, “what’s the breakdown of NPR’s annual funding?” And he asked, “who appoints leadership at NPR?” These are questions you can get by Googling, but for some reason he wanted to ask me. And also, let’s take a moment and pause on these questions, Mary Louise, because he made a major policy decision, right? And after doing so, he is just now asking for the basic facts. This is not exactly how most CEOs in America operate. Anyway, I answered his questions. About 1% of NPR’s budget is from federal grants, and an independent board appoints NPR’s CEO, who picks leadership.

So, Musk screwed up both pieces of information that he could have easily found out with a bit of simple Googling, and the other by asking some of the people he shouldn’t have fired (though, seriously, both of these things are pretty much common sense).

However, once Allyn started explaining this to Musk, Musk seemed to realize that he’d probably made a mistake.

Musk, in another email, compared NPR to media outlets controlled by governments of other countries, while also admitting “it sounds like” that might not be the case.

“The operating principle at new Twitter is simply fair and equal treatment, so if we label non-US accounts as govt, then we should do the same for US, but it sounds like that might not be accurate here,” he wrote.

It was a turnaround from a tweet he sent hours earlier that the state-affiliated label for NPR “seems accurate.”

But, of course, Musk can’t completely commit to admitting that he fucked up, so over the weekend, he changed the label on NPR from “state-affiliated media” to “government funded” and then later to “government funded media.”

This same label was also applied to the BBC, which seems less than pleased.

The BBC is objecting to a new label describing it as “government funded media” on one of its main Twitter accounts.

The corporation says it is speaking to the social media company about the designation on the @BBC account to “resolve this issue as soon as possible”.

In a statement, it said: “The BBC is, and always has been, independent. We are funded by the British public through the licence fee.”

I mean, to be fair, that “license fee” from the public is effectively mandatory.

But, still, this whole thing makes no sense. Again, there was a reason for the “state-affiliated media” label, which was to protect users from being misled, and giving them useful information for judging the quality of the news source they were encountering.

Musk, of course, still doesn’t seem to grasp the nature of trust and safety and how it’s supposed to be used to increase the feelings of trust and safety of the users of your site. Instead, he views it solely through the lens of how he can use it to help himself and punish those he dislikes, or thinks he needs to dislike.

The “Government Funded Media” label may not sound as sinister as “state-affiliated media” but what purpose does it actually serve? The only thing it does is allow Musk to effectively label the organization as one that has some sort of sketchy government connections.

Though, if that’s the case, shouldn’t Tesla and SpaceX be labeled as “government funded” as well? Tesla, somewhat famously, has relied tremendously on government subsidies to make its cars more affordable. Meanwhile, SpaceX basically only exists because of government funding. People have pointed out Musk’s extreme hypocrisy, in which he regularly attacks the idea of government subsidies, while relying heavily on them, but if the supposed problem is “government funding” needing to be called out, then clearly Tesla and SpaceX qualify.

Indeed, I’m almost wondering if the quick change from “Government Funded” to “Government Funded Media,” was in response to people on Twitter asking why Tesla and SpaceX didn’t get the same label.

Oh, and meanwhile, we should note that Twitter also should be labeled as “Government Funded” and possibly “Government Funded Media,” considering how much money the Saudi government invested in Twitter, and rolled over into the deal when Musk took it over. This has also been subject to many conspiracy theories, most of which are nonsense.

But, considering that Musk labeled NPR based on nonsense conspiracy theories, it seems only fair that he should do the same with his own companies. Either that or admit that just because an organization received some funds or subsidies from the government, it doesn’t make them a government-controlled entity.

Filed Under: bobby allyn, elon musk, government funding, state-affiliated
Companies: bbc, npr, spacex, tesla, twitter

There’s a story in the Daily Mail that underlines why it is important for people to make copies. It concerns the re-surfacing of rare recordings of the Beatles:

In the summer of 1963, the BBC began a radio series called Pop Go The Beatles which went out at 5pm on Tuesdays on the Light Programme.

Each show featured the Beatles performing six or seven songs, recorded in advance but as live, in other words with no or minimal post-production.

The BBC had not thought it worth keeping the original recordings, even though they consisted of rarely heard material – mostly covers of old rock ‘n’ roll numbers. Fortunately, a young fan of the Beatles, Margaret Ashworth, used her father’s modified radio connected directly to a reel-to-reel tape recorder to make recordings of the radio shows, which meant they were almost of broadcast quality.

When the recording company EMI was putting together an album of material performed by the Beatles for the BBC, it was able to draw on these high-quality recordings, some of which were much better than the other surviving copies. In this case, it was just chance that Margaret Ashworth had made the tapes. The general message is that people shouldn’t do this, because “copyright”. There are other cases where historic cultural material would have been lost had people not made copies, regardless of what copyright law might say.

Margaret Ashworth thought it would be fun to put out the old programmes she had recorded on a Web site, for free, recreating the weekly schedules she had heard back in the 1960s. So she contacted the BBC for permission, but was told it would “not approve” the upload of her recordings to the Internet. As she writes:

after all these years, with the Beatles still extremely popular, it seems mean-spirited of the BBC not to allow these little time capsules to be broadcast, either by me or by the Corporation. I cannot believe there are copyright issues that cannot be solved.

Readers of this blog probably can.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Originally published to the Walled Culture blog.

Filed Under: beatles, lost recordings, margaret ashworth, the beatles
Companies: bbc, emi

As UK Government Is Still Interested In Banning Tor, BBC Uses Tor To Get Around Russian Information Blockade

from the oh,-look-at-that dept

As Russia increasingly looks to cut itself off from the internet to avoid having any bit of reality reach its citizenry, others are working to get around the information blockade. The BBC on Friday reminded people that BBC News is available on the dark web in Ukrainian and Russian via Tor. As the BBC explained when it first launched its dark web version in 2019, it did this to make sure it could get news to people in places where the BBC News was blocked or restricted around the globe.

What strikes me as particularly notable about this is that it’s happening at the same time that the UK government is still pushing its Online Safety Bill, which, if it became law, would almost certainly be incompatible with the dark web and Tor. And the UK Parliament in the past has, literally, explored the idea of simply banning Tor outright (though, thankfully, recommended against it).

But, once again, so much about what’s happened over the past few weeks keeps seeming to demonstrate how the parts of the internet that we’ve often demonized… are actually quite useful in lots of scenarios, including in dealing with an illegal invasion and occupation by a nuclear power which is trying to win the information war while still trying to conduct its physical war.

And it should be remembered that this is exactly the reason why Tor was setup in the first place — to be able to route around government oppression and censorship and to enable people to get news in places where it might be difficult to get it otherwise. Yes, there are abuses on Tor, but this should be yet another reminder that we don’t just toss out useful technology services because some people can misuse and abuse them.

Filed Under: censorship, darkweb, news, russia, tor, ukraine
Companies: bbc

BBC Migrates Everything To HTTPS, Immediately Finds Itself Blocked By The Chinese Government

from the weird-freedom-of-not-giving-a-damn-how-much-it-sucks-for-your-constituents dept

Move to HTTPS; lose the Chinese. That’s the revised internet maxim. China’s Great Firewall has gradually reduced the number of foreign sites accessible by Chinese citizens… “gradually” only in the sense that it’s been a continuous rollout steadily decreasing web access. The government blocked an entire content delivery network at one point, so even this gradual rollout has seen its share of spikes.

As is being collaboratively reported at WikiTribune, the BBC says the move to HTTPS for all of it properties has resulted in Chinese citizens being unable to access their contents.

“In accordance with internet industry good practice, the BBC is currently changing the format of internet sites from HTTP to HTTPS. This means content is less vulnerable to tampering and specific pages on our websites can no longer be blocked. Recently the BBC Chinese language site has changed to this new format,” a BBC spokesperson told WikiTribune on Wednesday.

The spokesperson added that the corporation’s online audience in China has had no access to any of the BBC’s websites for “around a week.”

The BBC recommends a VPN to bypass Chinese web filtering, but that suggestion only goes so far in country where VPN use has been banned for the most part. Businesses still rely on VPNs for securing their communications and content, so the capitalist heart of the authoritarian government has granted exceptions. But the exceptions are limited to VPNs registered with the government, which presumably contain government backdoors.

Government-approved VPNs won’t be much use to citizens looking to read news the government has already expressed an interest in blocking. And citizens looking to keep their Citizen Scores™ from dropping will be better off seeking out approved news sources using the heavily-regulated web the government provides.

Filed Under: blocked, china, encryption, https
Companies: bbc

from the hey-hey-hey dept

Late last year, we covered a very odd lawsuit brought against the BBC by the production team for The Cosby Show centering around a BBC documentary covering Bill Cosby’s fall from grace in America. Bill Cosby: Fall of an American Icon used several short clips from The Cosby Show, altogether totaling less than four minutes of run-time, and all of them used to provide context to Cosby’s once-held status as an American public figure in good standing. Despite the BBC distributing the documentary exclusively overseas, production company Casey-Werner filed its suit in California. Whatever the geography around the legal action, we argued at the time that the BBC’s actions were as clear a case of fair use as we’d ever seen.

It seems that legal argument will not be answered in this suit, however, as the court has decided instead to simply dismiss over a lack of jurisdiction. While the BBC’s filings had indeed hinted at a forthcoming fair use defense, it also argued that the California court had no business adjudicating this matter to begin with.

BBC argued no actionable infringement could possibly have taken place within a California federal court’s jurisdiction because the documentary was only broadcast in the U.K., and while Fall of an American Icon was later available via the BBC’s iPlayer, “geoblocking” prevented it from being seen in the United States absent use of virtual private networks or proxy servers to evade restrictions.

In response, Casey-Werner argued essentially that everyone knows that geo-blocking doesn’t work and is easily defeated by the use of a VPN or DNS proxy. And, hey, that’s true, except that the failures of geo-blocking technology doesn’t give rise to jurisdiction by a California court. Only the BBC’s direct action in getting this content stateside would do that and the BBC clearly took steps specifically to avoid that happening. From Judge Percy Anderson’s ruling:

That some California individuals may have viewed the Program does not establish that Defendants directed their conduct toward California, particularly because any viewership in California occurred despite Defendants’ intentions and their efforts to prevent it.

Unauthorized viewers outside of the United Kingdom do not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction; rather, Defendants’ relationship with California must arise out of contacts that they themselves created with the state. … Moreover, Plaintiff neither alleges nor offers actual evidence of the extent of viewership of the Program in California.

And so the court never takes on the question of whether this is fair use or not, which it most certainly is. That we never got to that stage says a great deal more about the quality of Casey-Werner’s legal team than it does about the protections the BBC sit comfortably behind. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and Casey-Werner could always try to file another lawsuit in the U.K., but it would do well to drop this whole thing and lick its wounds instead.

Filed Under: copyright, cosby show, documentary, jurisdiction, uk
Companies: bbc, casey-werner

Two Bollywood Film Producers Get Court To Block Tons Of Sites In India, Including Archive.org

from the street-sweeper-for-justice dept

How many innocents would you accept being caught up in an action designed to nab criminals? How many good people is it acceptable to throw into jail alongside the truly bad actors? Most people would agree that any action that penalizes the innocent in order to punish the guilty is a bad course, with only truly minimal amounts of collateral damage being acceptable. Now let’s port that over to internet sites and ask how many innocent websites is it acceptable to block in order to block sites that are actually engaged in undesirable behavior?

Well, for the legal system in India, that question has often been answered in a cavalier manner, with regular court orders to block innocent websites being doled out to battle both terrorism and at the request of copyright holders to stop infringement. It’s in the latter cases where things get really silly, with previous orders issued to block sites like GitHub and the Internet Archive. Well, it seems the Internet Archive endured this sort of thing again recently, as a court order at the request of two Bollywood film studios caught archive.org into its ISP blocking web.

Earlier this week (and again for no apparent reason), the world renowned Internet Archive was rendered inaccessible to millions of users in India. The platform, which is considered by many to be one of the Internet’s most valued resources, hosts more than 15 petabytes of data, a figure which grows on a daily basis. Yet despite numerous requests for information, none was forthcoming from authorities. Quoted by local news outlet Medianama, Chris Butler, Office Manager at the Internet Archive, said that their attempts to contact the Indian Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) had proven fruitless.

Now, however, the mystery has been solved. The BBC says a local government agency provided a copy of a court order obtained by two Bollywood production companies who are attempting to slow down piracy of their films in India. Issued by a local judge, the sweeping order compels local ISPs to block access to 2,650 mainly file-sharing websites, including The Pirate Bay, RARBG, the revived KickassTorrents, and hundreds of other ‘usual suspects’. However, it also includes the URL for the Internet Archive, hence the problems with accessibility this week.

Let’s be clear about what this sort of thing represents: the punishment of the innocent in favor of an easy and lazy attempt to block copyright infringement. That’s not an overstatement. The continued use of court orders to block entire websites and the routine collateral damage are not exceptions, they are the rule. That they are allowed to continue to do this sort of damage even while the Indian government hand-waves away frantic requests for information from innocent site operators is as good a definition of whatever the opposite of justice is as I can think of.

Importantly, neither the court that issued the order or the two film companies requesting it, and ostensibly providing the list of sites to be blocked, are due any recompense for these actions. Perhaps most frustrating, the Internet Archive has clearly stated that not only does it have a method for copyright holders to request content takedowns, but it complied with those requests from these very same film studios.

“Is the Court aware of and did it consider the fact that the Internet Archive has a well-established and standard procedure for rights holders to submit take down requests and processes them expeditiously?” the platform said. “We find several instances of take down requests submitted for one of the plaintiffs, Red Chillies Entertainments, throughout the past year, each of which were processed and responded to promptly. After a preliminary review, we find no instance of our having been contacted by anyone at all about these films. Is there a specific claim that someone posted these films to archive.org? If so, we’d be eager to address it directly with the claimant.”

Now, archive.org was not the only innocent site blocked by this order. Weebly.com, along with at least one news site and the site for a French ISP also had their sites blocked. Still, this damage appears to be mostly met with indifferent shrugs by the Indian government and the film studios that issued this request.

So, for India, we have an answer to the question of how many innocent sites it’s willing to harm to combat copyright infringement. That answer, by our litmus test, is “too many.”

Filed Under: copyright, india, internet archive
Companies: bbc

BBC Says It May Contact Your Boss If You Post Comments It Finds Problematic

from the wait,-what? dept

There are all sorts of different ways that websites that allow comments have dealt with trollish behavior over the years, but I think the BBC’s new policy is the first I’ve seen in which the organization threatens that it may contact your boss or your school (found via Frank Fisher).

The new policy has a short section on “offensive or inappropriate content on BBC websites” where it says the following:

Offensive or inappropriate content on BBC websites

If you post or send offensive, inappropriate or objectionable content anywhere on or to BBC websites or otherwise engage in any disruptive behaviour on any BBC service, the BBC may use your personal information to stop such behaviour.

Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws (e.g. because content you have posted may be defamatory), the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement agencies about the content and your behaviour.

To be fair, it does seem to limit this to cases where it believes you’ve violated the law, but even so, it seems like a stretch to argue that the BBC should be calling your boss to tell on you for being a dipshit online, even if you break the law. We’ve all seen the stories of people actually confronting their own trolls or, better yet, the mothers of their trolls, but to make it official BBC policy seems to be going a bit far. Sure, if someone is breaking a criminal law, informing the police sounds perfectly reasonable, but your boss or your school?

Anyway, I guess be forewarned: if you don’t want the BBC telling your boss you’re a jerk online, maybe don’t be a jerk on the BBC’s website.

Filed Under: boss, comments, defamation, employer, offensive, school, trolling
Companies: bbc

BBC Now Training Its Secret, Likely Imaginary, Fleet Of Detector Vans On Your WiFi

from the is-this-really-a-good-use-of-resources? dept

Nearly a decade ago, we wrote about the fact that the BBC supposedly has a fleet of totally secret “detector” vans that drive around trying to figure out who was watching the BBC without paying for it. As you probably know, if you live in the UK, you’re forced to buy a BBC license if you have a TV or a TV turner card. And, for years, they’ve claimed to have had these magical detector vans. When we wrote about them in 2008, it was because a freedom of information request to find out about the vans was denied for the most ridiculous of reasons: revealing the details of the vans “would damage the public’s perception of the effectiveness of the TV detector vans.” In other words, the “vans” — if they exist at all — were more about scaring people into paying, rather than actually detecting those watching the BBC without a license.

Either way, those vans are back in the news, after the Telegraph reported that the vans have now been outfitted with apparent WiFi detection tools as well to go after people watching the BBC online without paying:

The Telegraph can disclose that from next month, the BBC vans will fan out across the country capturing information from private Wi-Fi networks in homes to ?sniff out? those who have not paid the licence fee.

The corporation has been given legal dispensation to use the new technology, which is typically only available to crime-fighting agencies, to enforce the new requirement that people watching BBC programmes via the iPlayer must have a TV licence.

A researcher interviewed in the article suggests — without actual knowledge — that the system could work in a manner in which the BBC’s iPlayer deliberately sends packets of certain sizes, and then the van could use a packet sniffer to look for matching sized packets, without actually capturing any of the actual internet traffic. In other words, it might make use of certain forms of (you guessed it…) metadata. Of course, this is all speculation, and given the earlier reports on the van’s Potemkin Village nature, it pays to be skeptical that the vans really do anything at all, beyond trying to scare people into paying licensing fees. After lots of people ran with the Telegraph’s original claims, it now appears (thankfully) that at least some reporters are finally skeptical of these special new “WiFi snooping” vans.

Even if the vans don’t really work (or exist), it still should serve as a clear reminder of how surveillance efforts are at least a constant temptation for those in power, allowing what was officially put in place for “national security” to creep into totally unrelated areas. If media companies could actually build a van to cruise around and sniff WiFi looking for pirates, does anyone really think they wouldn’t do so?

Filed Under: detector vans, surveillance, tv, tv licenses, uk, wifi
Companies: bbc

Facebook Declares BBC Article About French Political Polls 'Unsafe'

from the dave,-i-can't-let-you-post-that... dept

Lots of people have reasonable concerns about platforms like Facebook which not only provide an avenue for free expression — but which also have the power to suddenly decide it won’t allow certain forms of expression. Admittedly, there’s always a line to be drawn somewhere. People are happy that Facebook tries to keep out spam and scams, but it’s still worrying when it seems to want to filter out perfectly legitimate news stories. On Sunday, Nadim Kobeissi tweeted that Facebook wouldn’t allow the sharing of a BBC article on the latest political polling in France.

Facebook, you're going full Orwell. Never go full Orwell. pic.twitter.com/wsBpQNhMqE

— Nadim Kobe?ssi (@kaepora) December 6, 2015

I wasn’t sure I believed it so I tried to post that link to my own Facebook page and got a similar message:

Now it’s possible that there’s a concern over rogue dangerous ads on the BBC site — though for many people the BBC displays no ads at all. It’s also possible that Facebook’s algorithms interpret news about the National Front party (which is politely described as “far right,” but might more accurately be described as nationalist-to-racist) as somehow dangerous. But, just the fact that Facebook is magically determining that a news story is somehow “unsafe” without giving me any details to understand why or how is tremendously concerning.

And, again, this comes just after we’ve seen American politicians calling for Facebook and others to magically determine how to block “bad” content that might inspire terrorists. And, it comes just as Google’s Eric Schmidt argued that these kinds of filters should be more common. Yet, examples like this show just how problematic the idea of these kinds of filters can be.

The more pressure put on companies like Facebook to do that kind of proactive filtering, the more likely that perfectly legitimate information and news stories like the BBC story here get blocked. And that should be seen as immensely problematic if you believe in free expression and the ability to share ideas freely.

Filed Under: content, filters, free speech
Companies: bbc, facebook

BBC Blocks VPN Access To Its On-Demand Service, Even From UK

from the bad-for-everyone dept

The BBC is a rather odd organization. Unlike commercial broadcasters, or those given money directly by national governments, it is mainly funded by a public licensing fee that must be paid by anyone in the UK who watches or records TV programs in real time, using:

> TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders.

To justify the ?145 (about $220) annual fee, the BBC takes the line that many of the programs available through its iPlayer service are only available to UK viewers. Of course, that’s easy to circumvent using a VPN that allows those outside the UK to access content as if they were in the country. The BBC has finally woken up to this fact, and drawn exactly the wrong conclusion about what it should do, as TorrentFreak (TF) reports:

> Over the past several days TF has received several reports from VPN users who can no longer access iPlayer from UK-based VPN servers. > > “BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only,” is the notice they receive instead.

Instead of gracefully accepting the reality that geoblocking makes no sense in a world where VPNs allow users to appear to be more or less wherever they wish, the BBC has decided to try to block such access, including VPNs used by UK license-payers:

> The BBC informs TF that the VPN ban was implemented to keep iPlayer ‘pirates’ at bay. The company is doing its best to keep company and school VPNs [in the UK] open but advises regular users to disconnect their VPN service in advance if they want to access iPlayer.

In our post-Snowden world, where the use of a VPN is becoming ever-more prudent, the BBC has just provided a strong disincentive for doing so in the UK. That’s really shabby treatment for BBC license-payers, who ought to be allowed to access content in a secure manner. It’s also bad news for everyone online, since the more widely VPNs are deployed, the less using one marks you out for special attention by government intelligence agencies. What the BBC should have done here is see the desire of people outside the UK to view its programs as a great opportunity to meet an evident need — and to generate extra income.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: bbc, blocks, copyright, iplayer, licensing, piracy, security, uk, vpn
Companies: bbc