|
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"kony" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:45:56 -0800, "Dana" wrote: It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices proves detection of an MP3 player recording. I never said it can detect an MP3 player recording. I said it can detect an MP3 player, or pretty much anything electronic. The thread is about detecting an MP3 player. Yep, and there are devices that can detect electronic devices. How the OP uses that Information is up to him. We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too vaguely) posed, Actually what he needs is a device to scan for electronic devices, and they exist already. How the OP handles the knowledge of such sweeps depends on him. I have never claimed "electronic devices" can't be detected. You have been doing that this entire thread. The OP needs a device that can detect electronic devices, he can get one for under 1000 dollars. Now how he uses such a device is up to him. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:01:47 +0100, Joey
wrote: On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:37:24 -0800, "Dana" wrote: [...] It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices proves detection of an MP3 player recording. Rather, it is your burden to be specific with the claim that it's possible by showing even one reproducible example. We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too vaguely) posed, would allow identification of a device as an MP3 player that is recording. Identifying the existence of "some" kind of device, then a search uncovering this device and a physical examination to determine that it is recording (looking at the screen or lights) is another matter. I can clarify whatever you are unsure about if it helps. The specific scenario should have been, needed to be mentioned at the opening of the thread. Because it wasn't, the time spent on the thread wasn't very productive and many have lost interest. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:40:38 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote: But I would like to know if I can be detected if I do attempt to make a recording. Your last sentence is why "kony" won't get his "make&model" for such a detector. Or any more of a technical description than I have given him, of how they work. I would find any test of any existing piece of equipment, a great start towards proving an MP3 player can be detected (as an MP3 player, since it may not be enough to identify a mere presence of an electronic device). I note that he isn't supplying the "Make&Model" of his undetectable MP3 Recorder. Recall that I'd mentioned the issue of scenaro already. What is or is not detectable depends on scenario. Can they seize ALL unidentified devices? Will the person be in a random or controlled environment? Indoors or out? Will the person carrying on the conversation need have a concealed detector that monitors in realtime, and at what distance, or only an initial or point-of-entry scan? What other devices are known to be present in the vicinity? I have never suggested it was impossible to detect that someone electronic *exists* in general. Pinpointing the device, identifying it, or even finding that it exists in a specific scenario, let alone that it's recording, is what I dispute has not been proven or even reasonably suggested. Randomly pick a small battery powered MP3 player. Remember that I need not pick _ONE_ because such a concealed device is not limited to being only ONE type of recording MP3 player, the detection equipment would have to be able to detect any and (practically) all types of recorders, but not detect any other common devices, not excessive false positive alerts. He provides an argument that no such detector could exist, based totally on his theories of what is possible, Based on no details that are useful to discriminate what an MP3 player is and it's operation in recording. If the topic had been detecting a RF transmitter of some sort, or a know class of substance like explosives, that is a different matter. Both have a few known signatures. So I suggest that until you can describe what the unique signature is that is unique to recording MP3 players, there is no way to detect them, and only them, selectively. but then complains that no one will provide him with more than a basic theoretical description of the workings of a device, that its makers, sellers (usually the same people) and users, don't want working details generally available. There is no basic theoretical description that has been provided relating to an MP3 player- the whole purpose of the thread. This is a key detail that cannot be overlooked. That some generalized similar concept of "detecting" some other thing is possible, can only be held true if there are unique detectable, in the specific scenario, attributes common only to MP3 players, or perhaps by extension, all small digital recorders but not other devices. Counter-surveillance devices are like alarm systems, you don't want to tell anyone the details of how one works. No one, who knows, is going to provide "kony" the "proof" he is demanding. So what we have is a generalized concept of "it works for a secret reason". Sorry but that is anything except a reasonable argument, let alone proof of concept alone. We have to have at least 3 things: 1) A specific, exact scenario. 2) A method for discriminating recording MP3 players from everything else, in the exact scenario. Not some vague concept of detecting semiconductors, a mere HF signal or anything else that is not unique to a multitude of different MP3 players. 3) A device that can reliably use that method in that scenario. #2 is the linchpin, #3 may indeed be possible after #2 is resolved to #1. So it is with any purpose built device. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"Ken Maltby" wrote in message ... "Joey" wrote in message ... On 13 Oct 2006, wrote: Joey wrote: On 11 Oct 2006, Aly wrote: Joey wrote in message ... [...] Sorry for my rather unhelpful reply, I'm having one of my moments where I only talk to microcontrollers. No problems. Seriously though. There's very little in world that's so important. I've worked with people that would *record* meetings thinking they were of vital importance when in actual truth, no one could care less. I guess it would just cause people to be more careful about what they say. I'm unable to view those videos you've supplied as this is a development machine without any clutter on it. eBay could be a good place to buy such things though. All sorts of stuff comes out of the AsiaPac. This is to document something quite serious. Are you the trying to be the documenter, or trying to avoid being the documentee? Or both? I don't want to be recorded. But I would like to know if I can be detected if I do attempt to make a recording. Your last sentence is why "kony" won't get his "make&model" for such a detector. Or any more of a technical description than I have given him, of how they work. I note that he isn't supplying the "Make&Model" of his undetectable MP3 Recorder. He provides an argument that no such detector could exist, based totally on his theories of what is possible, but then complains that no one will provide him with more than a basic theoretical description of the workings of a device, that its makers, sellers (usually the same people) and users, don't want working details generally available. Counter-surveillance devices are like alarm systems, you don't want to tell anyone the details of how one works. No one, who knows, is going to provide "kony" the "proof" he is demanding. And now we will see Kony saying he knew that there was no such device, and that we were just spouting garbage. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
Many cellphones have dictophone capability. How do you tell if the cellphone
in the visitor's pocket is not recording? The phone could be also simply connected to another remote one, which would do the actual recording. "kony" wrote in message ... On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:48:32 -0800, "Dana" wrote: You man there actually is something which will detect MP3 recorders? There are devices that can detect when electronic devices are being used. There are devices that can be made that can detect almost any known material If said mp3 player is made of that material it can be detected. Which is not entirely applicable, since plenty of non-recorders are made of circuit boards, ICs & other discretes, and some plastic. Cell phone and pager are two quite common ones. Detecting electronics devices in general, is it useful? We dont know the exact scenario, what the result would be of a positive detection but as above, cell phones and pagers would tend to be caught and are going to be far more common and innocuous than a recording device, though in the former case, the phone may have recording capability too. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
So it can tell semiconductor junctions of an MP3 recorder from semiconductor
junctions of non-recording devices? Th OP question was detection not *any* semiconductor device, but a MP3 recorder. By the way, the recorder doesn't have to be in that room. Enough to have a connected cellphone in a pocket. "Dana" wrote in message ... Yeah, so what. There are devices that can detect semiconducter junctions. MP3 players have semiconductor junctions, hence they can be detected. Now how about the phones that can record? They also have semiconductor junctions, hence they can also be detected. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
Hogwash.
MRI detects primirily concentration of hydrogen atoms. It requires quite strong magnetic field with precise gradient. What you describe is using different principles. "Dana" wrote in message ... Hogwash. You seem not to understand what can be done with electronics. There are some devices that use the priciples of a MRI and shrink it down to a hand held sized device to scan for explosives. Since the compounds in explosives give off a unique signature after being exposed to a strong magnetic field, that signature is then stored in memory. Now your sensor emits a magnetic field, and the reciever looks for the signature of the explosives. So it is only a matter of expanding your signature library, and your receiver can be programmed to look for pretty much anything. This is only one of many new tools that are out. The semiconductor junction detector has been out for around 30 years. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"Alexander Grigoriev" wrote in message link.net... So it can tell semiconductor junctions of an MP3 recorder from semiconductor junctions of non-recording devices? Th OP question was detection not *any* semiconductor device, but a MP3 recorder. By the way, the recorder doesn't have to be in that room. Enough to have a connected cellphone in a pocket. Yep, and that can be detected. What you do with the knowledge that the person has an electronic device that may or may not record is up to you and what you want to do. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:01:06 -0800, "Dana"
wrote: "Alexander Grigoriev" wrote in message hlink.net... So it can tell semiconductor junctions of an MP3 recorder from semiconductor junctions of non-recording devices? Th OP question was detection not *any* semiconductor device, but a MP3 recorder. By the way, the recorder doesn't have to be in that room. Enough to have a connected cellphone in a pocket. Yep, and that can be detected. By that you must specifically mean the cell phone. Clear details matter a lot. What you do with the knowledge that the person has an electronic device that may or may not record is up to you and what you want to do. It's essentially useless information because in modern societies every other person has a cell phone or beeper, MP3 player or whatever. One could not conduct business in an environment where they had to make some random speculation every time they came across the existence of an unknown electronic device, but as importantly, it still has not even been established than in any specific scenario, the MP3 recorder would be detected at all. yes it's possible to detect that an object exists, but it's also possible to have a scenario where the testing method doesn't detect it. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"Alexander Grigoriev" wrote in message link.net... Hogwash. Yep, that is all you have. Another such technology is called Quadrapole Resonance or QR. Originally developed by the Department of Defense to detect land mines, QR directs a beam of radio waves at an object. The radio waves will penetrate the object and infuse whatever is inside. When the radio waves pass through an explosive material, the molecules of that material will polarize or develop a small electrical charge. As the molecules lose their charge, they emit a very weak radio frequency signal that can be picked up and analyzed to detect explosives. Because it relies on harmless radio waves that are easy to produce and monitor, this technology is considered to be one of the most promising in the field. MRI detects primirily concentration of hydrogen atoms. It requires quite strong magnetic field with precise gradient. What you describe is using different principles. And another one that needs to keep up on technology Here are some links that will explain what I am talking about. http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/4925/ Sauer's studies are focused on nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR), a type of radio frequency spectroscopy that can help identify many substances without the use of a large static magnetic field http://www.americanscientist.org/tem.../assetid/39131 The phenomenon of nuclear quadrupole resonance is akin to nuclear magnetic resonance, which is the basis of magnetic-resonance imaging. But unlike MRI scanners, instruments based on nuclear quadrupole resonance are not required to generate strong magnetic fields. "Dana" wrote in message ... Hogwash. You seem not to understand what can be done with electronics. There are some devices that use the priciples of a MRI and shrink it down to a hand held sized device to scan for explosives. Since the compounds in explosives give off a unique signature after being exposed to a strong magnetic field, that signature is then stored in memory. Now your sensor emits a magnetic field, and the reciever looks for the signature of the explosives. So it is only a matter of expanding your signature library, and your receiver can be programmed to look for pretty much anything. This is only one of many new tools that are out. The semiconductor junction detector has been out for around 30 years. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"kony" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:01:06 -0800, "Dana" wrote: "Alexander Grigoriev" wrote in message hlink.net... So it can tell semiconductor junctions of an MP3 recorder from semiconductor junctions of non-recording devices? Th OP question was detection not *any* semiconductor device, but a MP3 recorder. By the way, the recorder doesn't have to be in that room. Enough to have a connected cellphone in a pocket. Yep, and that can be detected. By that you must specifically mean the cell phone. No, by that I mean any electronic device, which may or may not be used to record conversations. What you do with the knowledge that the person has an electronic device that may or may not record is up to you and what you want to do. It's essentially useless information Nope, it will tell you that the person has an electronic device that may or may not be used to record your conversation or take pictures. This is where security comes in, and how much security you want to enforce. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"kony" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:40:38 -0500, "Ken Maltby" wrote: But I would like to know if I can be detected if I do attempt to make a recording. Your last sentence is why "kony" won't get his "make&model" for such a detector. Or any more of a technical description than I have given him, of how they work. I would find any test of any existing piece of equipment, a great start towards proving an MP3 player can be detected (as an MP3 player, since it may not be enough to identify a mere presence of an electronic device). I note that he isn't supplying the "Make&Model" of his undetectable MP3 Recorder. Recall that I'd mentioned the issue of scenaro already. What is or is not detectable depends on scenario. Can they seize ALL unidentified devices? Will the person be in a random or controlled environment? Indoors or out? Will the person carrying on the conversation need have a concealed detector that monitors in realtime, and at what distance, or only an initial or point-of-entry scan? What other devices are known to be present in the vicinity? I have never suggested it was impossible to detect that someone electronic *exists* in general. Pinpointing the device, identifying it, or even finding that it exists in a specific scenario, let alone that it's recording, is what I dispute has not been proven or even reasonably suggested. Randomly pick a small battery powered MP3 player. Remember that I need not pick _ONE_ because such a concealed device is not limited to being only ONE type of recording MP3 player, the detection equipment would have to be able to detect any and (practically) all types of recorders, but not detect any other common devices, not excessive false positive alerts. He provides an argument that no such detector could exist, based totally on his theories of what is possible, Based on no details that are useful to discriminate what an MP3 player is and it's operation in recording. If the topic had been detecting a RF transmitter of some sort, or a know class of substance like explosives, that is a different matter. Both have a few known signatures. So I suggest that until you can describe what the unique signature is that is unique to recording MP3 players, there is no way to detect them, and only them, selectively. but then complains that no one will provide him with more than a basic theoretical description of the workings of a device, that its makers, sellers (usually the same people) and users, don't want working details generally available. There is no basic theoretical description that has been provided relating to an MP3 player- the whole purpose of the thread. This is a key detail that cannot be overlooked. That some generalized similar concept of "detecting" some other thing is possible, can only be held true if there are unique detectable, in the specific scenario, attributes common only to MP3 players, or perhaps by extension, all small digital recorders but not other devices. Counter-surveillance devices are like alarm systems, you don't want to tell anyone the details of how one works. No one, who knows, is going to provide "kony" the "proof" he is demanding. So what we have is a generalized concept of "it works for a secret reason". Sorry but that is anything except a reasonable argument, let alone proof of concept alone. We have to have at least 3 things: 1) A specific, exact scenario. 2) A method for discriminating recording MP3 players from everything else, in the exact scenario. Not some vague concept of detecting semiconductors, a mere HF signal or anything else that is not unique to a multitude of different MP3 players. 3) A device that can reliably use that method in that scenario. #2 is the linchpin, #3 may indeed be possible after #2 is resolved to #1. So it is with any purpose built device. All this proves is that you have not read or understood my earlier posts. I described the way actual devices operate to detect any device that is detecting audio. It shouldn't be hard to realize that any device that is responding to a pattern of sound is a threat. For a recorder, of any kind, to record the audio in a room it must detect it, and amplify the detected signal. These processes can be detected, if this processing matches the on and off timing of a known pattern of sound, (which you control) you can isolate the device. (Your "2" above.) I hope you aren't going to say that while this type of detector can detect that there is a device responding to the sound in the room, and help you locate it; this hasn't identified the device as an MP3 recorder. I would think even you realize that it is of no importance what the device is, that is responding to the audio pattern, it would need to be considered a live threat. You might check into why the most expensive "White Noise Generators" include a means to inject a user supplied signal into them. Luck; Ken |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"Alexander Grigoriev" wrote in message link.net... Many cellphones have dictophone capability. How do you tell if the cellphone in the visitor's pocket is not recording? The phone could be also simply connected to another remote one, which would do the actual recording. Detecting and locating any device intentionally transmitting an RF signal is trivial in relation to this discussion. But the kind of device I have described can certainly detect that it is responding to the audio pattern, and locate it. Luck; Ken |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:08:05 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote: 1) A specific, exact scenario. 2) A method for discriminating recording MP3 players from everything else, in the exact scenario. Not some vague concept of detecting semiconductors, a mere HF signal or anything else that is not unique to a multitude of different MP3 players. 3) A device that can reliably use that method in that scenario. #2 is the linchpin, #3 may indeed be possible after #2 is resolved to #1. So it is with any purpose built device. All this proves is that you have not read or understood my earlier posts. I described the way actual devices operate to detect any device that is detecting audio. You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. It shouldn't be hard to realize that any device that is responding to a pattern of sound is a threat. Sure, but even ignoring the issue of whether it's feasible to have test sound patterns at all, we don't have any evidence a digitally recording MP3 player will have a detectable response in particular scenarios, if in any at all. For a recorder, of any kind, to record the audio in a room it must detect it, and amplify the detected signal. The recorder does not necessarily need amplification prior to digitization, it is commonly a single chip solution that would not have to output to headphones either in this use. These processes can be detected, if this processing matches the on and off timing of a known pattern of sound, (which you control) you can isolate the device. (Your "2" above.) "IF" the process existed, and "IF" the detection device was suitable sensitive, and "IF" the scenario allowed proximity, then perhaps it's possible. None of these three IFs can be assumed yet. I hope you aren't going to say that while this type of detector can detect that there is a device responding to the sound in the room, and help you locate it; this hasn't identified the device as an MP3 recorder. Not at all, I'm going to say the device won't detect the MP3 player recording at all in most scenarios, that it might detect "something" electronic is in the room but that's all, it won't ID it as an MP3 player nor that it is responding to sound in the room. "Maybe" if you had it right up against the recorder, but do you expect that scenario? I would think even you realize that it is of no importance what the device is, that is responding to the audio pattern, it would need to be considered a live threat. You're drifting down a tangent that has not yet been reached. I never argued that a detected response to an audio pattern wasn't suspicious enough to draw a conclusion about the operation of a device. It still doesn't get us where we need to be, to detect a recording MP3 player reliably and discriminate it from other non-recording electronic devices. This is not the same as a tape recorder. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"kony" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:08:05 -0500, "Ken Maltby" wrote: 1) A specific, exact scenario. 2) A method for discriminating recording MP3 players from everything else, in the exact scenario. Not some vague concept of detecting semiconductors, a mere HF signal or anything else that is not unique to a multitude of different MP3 players. 3) A device that can reliably use that method in that scenario. #2 is the linchpin, #3 may indeed be possible after #2 is resolved to #1. So it is with any purpose built device. All this proves is that you have not read or understood my earlier posts. I described the way actual devices operate to detect any device that is detecting audio. You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. I was suggesting no such thing. I find your idea that an ungrounded MP3 recorder has any significant shielding, very unlikely. The recorder to be a threat and to respond to sound must let sound waves through, even if it is a contact microphone/sensor/transducer, and they require significant amplification in their operation. It is not necessary to know "which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory", the detection takes place before that is even an issue. If you are going to pretend you understand how the device I described operates, try to approach it from a different angle than; finding a way it couldn't work, then deciding that is what I must be describing. It shouldn't be hard to realize that any device that is responding to a pattern of sound is a threat. Sure, but even ignoring the issue of whether it's feasible to have test sound patterns at all, we don't have any evidence a digitally recording MP3 player will have a detectable response in particular scenarios, if in any at all. So now you doubt that it's possible to generate a controlled pattern of sound? (You wouldn't be responsible for Rap "Music", would you?) I'm no giving you "evidence". But I must have missed your "evidence" that the device I described doesn't work. Evidence is something besides your opinion, or your interpretation of High School Physics and needs to be based in proven limitations. Try the following: http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/ra...ipment/rf1.htm it's the cheapest way to even start to examine this issue with an attempt to establish some "evidence", you should be able to detect some response from a recording device. This is nothing like the device I was describing, but if you can see a result with this, even you would have to admit that much more sophisticated devices can do what I've described. For a recorder, of any kind, to record the audio in a room it must detect it, and amplify the detected signal. The recorder does not necessarily need amplification prior to digitization, it is commonly a single chip solution that would not have to output to headphones either in this use. Almost all audio detectors/sensors require amplification, and those that don't, carry a significant bias current that gets modulated, more than enough to be detectable with modern equipment. These processes can be detected, if this processing matches the on and off timing of a known pattern of sound, (which you control) you can isolate the device. (Your "2" above.) "IF" the process existed, and "IF" the detection device was suitable sensitive, and "IF" the scenario allowed proximity, then perhaps it's possible. None of these three IFs can be assumed yet. Isn't it fortunate that no one needs your agreement that it's possible, to make and use such devices. I hope you aren't going to say that while this type of detector can detect that there is a device responding to the sound in the room, and help you locate it; this hasn't identified the device as an MP3 recorder. Not at all, I'm going to say the device won't detect the MP3 player recording at all in most scenarios, that it might detect "something" electronic is in the room but that's all, it won't ID it as an MP3 player nor that it is responding to sound in the room. "Maybe" if you had it right up against the recorder, but do you expect that scenario? I say that such devices can detect any device that is responding to a supplied audio signal pattern. Any device that is detecting the audio pattern. They can detect anything electronic, that generates electrical noise or signal when it detects acoustical energy. There is a great deal more some of these devices can do in the hands of a skilled operator/analyst. It looks like we have established that you are going to just deny the possibility. You can believe what you wish, it has no impact on reality what so ever. I would think even you realize that it is of no importance what the device is, that is responding to the audio pattern, it would need to be considered a live threat. You're drifting down a tangent that has not yet been reached. I never argued that a detected response to an audio pattern wasn't suspicious enough to draw a conclusion about the operation of a device. It still doesn't get us where we need to be, to detect a recording MP3 player reliably and discriminate it from other non-recording electronic devices. This is not the same as a tape recorder. You have been provided a description of how these devices can do just that, your only answer seems to be that you don't believe a device could work as I described. You provide no explanation (much less evidence) of why it couldn't work. You seem intent on saying "No they can't work." I know that they most certainly do work. What point is there in further argument, on that basis? Luck; Ken |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
In article , Mitch Crane wrote:
Yeah, good point. I never considered an external mic. I guess the nude office will have to ban labial studs. They should also ban scrotal studs in the interest of fairness. There's a relatively common type of mechanical treatment for impotence in the shape of an implanted rod which can be extended in the corpus callosum to ... Oh, I'm sure that you can work out the details. So, Albert was spying on Vikki. I'm surprised the recordings weren't included with the rest of the Diana Tapes. -- Aidan Karley, FGS Aberdeen, Scotland Written at Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:10 +0100, but posted later. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
In article , Dana wrote:
There are some devices that use the priciples of a MRI and shrink it down to a hand held sized device to scan for explosives. Since the compounds in explosives give off a unique signature after being exposed to a strong magnetic field, That signature ... would it be from the azide bonds in a heavy metal azide, from the nitrate bonds in RDX or PETN cubane nitrate, or from the nitrate bonds in the current scare-of-the-month acetone derivatives? It would be a breath of fresh air if it were. (If your chemistry isn't good enough to spot the trap in this question, be very, very careful.) -- Aidan Karley, FGS Aberdeen, Scotland Written at Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:14 +0100, but posted later. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
In article , Kony wrote:
Which is not entirely applicable, since plenty of non-recorders are made of circuit boards, ICs & other discretes, and some plastic. Cell phone and pager are two quite common ones. More to the point, since someone was talking about an office-like setting, would be things like SCR (triode) dimmer switches built into the walls of the room, for perfectly good reasons. The phrase is "false positive", and if anything they're even more corrosive of ones confidence in the usability of a detection system than are false negatives. (Had a bad week last week with a poison gas detector system going off every couple of hours. Every false positive meant that I had to kit up with the breathing apparatus and go to check the situation out.) -- Aidan Karley, FGS Aberdeen, Scotland Written at Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:46 +0100, but posted later. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:32:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote: You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. I was suggesting no such thing. I find your idea that an ungrounded MP3 recorder has any significant shielding, very unlikely. Define significant. Many have grounded copper foil in them. It's not as though this is a high powered device to begin with, though, and would commonly have to be detected at a distance. The recorder to be a threat and to respond to sound must let sound waves through, even if it is a contact microphone/sensor/transducer, and they require significant amplification in their operation. No, you are thinking of older devices. There needs be no amplification prior to the digitization chip which can run at constant current, very low voltage and no easily detectable response to room noise from a distance. We might consider it mere coincidence that it is recording something, because the means to that end are different than in a recording device with a different (end) medium and analog amplification. It is not necessary to know "which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory", the detection takes place before that is even an issue. You mean "IF" it could, it would. If you are going to pretend you understand how the device I described operates, try to approach it from a different angle than; finding a way it couldn't work, then deciding that is what I must be describing. I'm not going to pretend anything, I'm suggesting you are not describing an MP3 player in recording mode. All the rest of your supportive argument hinges on being able to detect a signal that may not exist at all, or in cases where it does, are not sufficient strenth to measure at any distance. Remember it is not enough to find one particular MP3 player, nor a dissimilar device like a tape recorder, that can be detected- it has to be effective against the entire class of devices, or at the very least the common ones available on the market. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"kony" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:32:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby" wrote: You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. I was suggesting no such thing. I find your idea that an ungrounded MP3 recorder has any significant shielding, very unlikely. Define significant. Many have grounded copper foil in them. It's not as though this is a high powered device to begin with, though, and would commonly have to be detected at a distance. Still consumer electronics do not have very good shielding. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. And most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. The recorder to be a threat and to respond to sound must let sound waves through, even if it is a contact microphone/sensor/transducer, and they require significant amplification in their operation. No, you are thinking of older devices. There needs be no amplification prior to the digitization chip which can run at constant current, very low voltage and no easily detectable response to room noise from a distance. You still have the sampling rate, which requires a clock at that rate, so at a minimum that clock can be detected. And most designs would include an amplification stage prior to digitization, as the levels from most mics will not be sufficient, and also to add isolation between the input stages. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:21:08 -0800, "Dana"
wrote: "kony" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:32:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby" wrote: You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. I was suggesting no such thing. I find your idea that an ungrounded MP3 recorder has any significant shielding, very unlikely. Define significant. Many have grounded copper foil in them. It's not as though this is a high powered device to begin with, though, and would commonly have to be detected at a distance. Still consumer electronics do not have very good shielding. Doesn't have to be *very good*, only has to further reduce emissions which likely weren't at a level high enough to discriminate recording mode even without the shield. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. That does not indicate it is an MP3 player, let alone recording. There is no one "sample clock" common to all MP3 players. most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. Manufacturer of the chip, yes, not the MP3 player, and "spec" really means, hardware support as it can't be selected at random like with most computers running soft codecs. Even so, this rate is not usually a separate oscillator, the chip itself has a clock that can also vary per chip. It is certianly not something that remains constant over all MP3 players, and not a signal that appears only when set to recording mode. The recorder to be a threat and to respond to sound must let sound waves through, even if it is a contact microphone/sensor/transducer, and they require significant amplification in their operation. No, you are thinking of older devices. There needs be no amplification prior to the digitization chip which can run at constant current, very low voltage and no easily detectable response to room noise from a distance. You still have the sampling rate, which requires a clock at that rate, No, it does not. Clock rates are divisible or multiplied these days, and these rates are often common to process sizes, or current targets, not a specific functional requirement. In other words, it's a safe bet you cannot detect a recording MP3 player with a universal "sampling rate" detection scheme, even before considering they won't all necessaril record at the same rate, further lacking consideration for any possiblity of variable rate or spread spectrum. so at a minimum that clock can be detected. And most designs would include an amplification stage prior to digitization, as the levels from most mics will not be sufficient, Sufficient for hearing through earbuds, no, that'd be amp'd. Sufficient for a microchip DESIGNED to use a mic input to digitize MP3? It would be an incredibly poorly designed chip if it had to have a preamp tacked on after the mic. and also to add isolation between the input stages. You are thinking old-school multi-stage, possibly even discrete audio designs. All-integrated single chip MP3 players (recording) isn't directly applicable. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"kony" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:21:08 -0800, "Dana" wrote: "kony" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:32:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby" wrote: You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. I was suggesting no such thing. I find your idea that an ungrounded MP3 recorder has any significant shielding, very unlikely. Define significant. Many have grounded copper foil in them. It's not as though this is a high powered device to begin with, though, and would commonly have to be detected at a distance. Still consumer electronics do not have very good shielding. Doesn't have to be *very good*, only has to further reduce emissions which likely weren't at a level high enough to discriminate recording mode even without the shield. And most consumer electronics are not very well shielded, hence it is a snap to pick up their emissions with off the shelf test equipment. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. That does not indicate it is an MP3 player, So what. It still indicates the presence of a device that can record the persons converstaion, and that is what is required. It can be a dictation device some other kind of recorder, it would still be detected. most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. Manufacturer of the chip, yes, not the MP3 player All you need is the chip, and usually the OEM will list what the chip MFG states anyway. and "spec" really means, hardware support as it can't be selected at random like with most computers running soft codecs. Even so, this rate is not usually a separate oscillator, Usually you have an external clock needed to feed the codec. That clock can be detected as well. The recorder to be a threat and to respond to sound must let sound waves through, even if it is a contact microphone/sensor/transducer, and they require significant amplification in their operation. No, you are thinking of older devices. There needs be no amplification prior to the digitization chip which can run at constant current, very low voltage and no easily detectable response to room noise from a distance. You still have the sampling rate, which requires a clock at that rate, No, it does not. Without a sampling rate, there will be no conversion of analog to digital. You have to take so many samples of the analog signal. so at a minimum that clock can be detected. And most designs would include an amplification stage prior to digitization, as the levels from most mics will not be sufficient, and also to add isolation between the input stages. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:31:16 -0800, "Dana"
wrote: Doesn't have to be *very good*, only has to further reduce emissions which likely weren't at a level high enough to discriminate recording mode even without the shield. And most consumer electronics are not very well shielded, hence it is a snap to pick up their emissions with off the shelf test equipment. "Most" don't have any shield at all. MP3 players, commonly do. Further, "most" consumer devices have an order or two of magnitude, more active parts in them and use far more power, stronger emissions. Further, detecting a very faint signal is not the same thing as having a strong enough detection and valid discrimination method between recording MP3 players and all other consumer electronics. Remember that we are not just trying to detect that some "thing" using electricity is present, it has to be identifed in function and is not just one device buy a multitude of different MP3 player (or other digital recorders too if you want to consider all types) recorders. You will have to find a specific commonality, not just a vague generalization, to discriminate them. Even this much is premature- that commonality would have to exist which has not in itself been established. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. That does not indicate it is an MP3 player, So what. It still indicates the presence of a device that can record the persons converstaion, No it does not. Did you think nothing but MP3 players have clocks, or that all MP3 players have the same clock rate? Neither is true. and that is what is required. It can be a dictation device some other kind of recorder, it would still be detected. No, in some cases you might detect some devices, but it'd be random, you'd far more often detect non-recording or devices completely incapable of recording and wouldn't detect some actually recording. In other words, random and useless. most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. Manufacturer of the chip, yes, not the MP3 player All you need is the chip, and usually the OEM will list what the chip MFG states anyway. You'll need ALL of the chips in existence, and you'd find some are not putting out enough noise to be detected in a typical scenario. Maybe if you put a scanner up against the device. Is that really useful? If you had the device out already, no further scanning is needed at all unless you have far-fetched idea like if the MP3 recorder were built into a shoe-heel or a clock, etc. Even then, it's a matter of scenario. If that scenario doesn't allow getting the scanner close enough to find the shoe is a source, you'll never even know it was suspicious there was a noisey shoe. I've gone off on a tangent though, for our purposes an MP3 player should be considered what is bought off the shelf. OEMs do not "list what the chip MFG states". Most often you have to tear open the specific player and examine it yourself, or rely on reports from someone else who has. and "spec" really means, hardware support as it can't be selected at random like with most computers running soft codecs. Even so, this rate is not usually a separate oscillator, Usually you have an external clock needed to feed the codec. That clock can be detected as well. Again you are thinking of older electronics, today's player/recorders are highly integrated. That doesn't mean ALL devices will have a different or undetectable, or indistinuishable clock signal, but it does mean you don't have a commonality that allows detection as an MP3 player, let alone one recording. No, it does not. Without a sampling rate, there will be no conversion of analog to digital. The existence of a sampling rate does not suggest it is always the same rate nor that it is measureable in any particular scenario. You have to take so many samples of the analog signal. Yes, but this does not lead to any of the other conclusions. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
It all boils down to a weapon vs armor arms race.
Suppose one vendor produced a device that can detect some device which samples at 8 kHz. More likely it will detect frequencies that are multiple of 8 KHz. Then, an MP3 recorder doesn't have to use any external xtal frequency which is n*8000 - an on-chip PLL is commonplace. A mic is connected directly to the chip, so it won't give any EMI. Most reliable signature would be periodic access to the flash serial interface, though. Still, if someone wants to record a conversation, undetected, a custom shield may be manufactured for the recorder (like 1 mm of permalloy/copper sandwich), and bingo: no detection. "kony" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:31:16 -0800, "Dana" wrote: Doesn't have to be *very good*, only has to further reduce emissions which likely weren't at a level high enough to discriminate recording mode even without the shield. And most consumer electronics are not very well shielded, hence it is a snap to pick up their emissions with off the shelf test equipment. "Most" don't have any shield at all. MP3 players, commonly do. Further, "most" consumer devices have an order or two of magnitude, more active parts in them and use far more power, stronger emissions. Further, detecting a very faint signal is not the same thing as having a strong enough detection and valid discrimination method between recording MP3 players and all other consumer electronics. Remember that we are not just trying to detect that some "thing" using electricity is present, it has to be identifed in function and is not just one device buy a multitude of different MP3 player (or other digital recorders too if you want to consider all types) recorders. You will have to find a specific commonality, not just a vague generalization, to discriminate them. Even this much is premature- that commonality would have to exist which has not in itself been established. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. That does not indicate it is an MP3 player, So what. It still indicates the presence of a device that can record the persons converstaion, No it does not. Did you think nothing but MP3 players have clocks, or that all MP3 players have the same clock rate? Neither is true. and that is what is required. It can be a dictation device some other kind of recorder, it would still be detected. No, in some cases you might detect some devices, but it'd be random, you'd far more often detect non-recording or devices completely incapable of recording and wouldn't detect some actually recording. In other words, random and useless. most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. Manufacturer of the chip, yes, not the MP3 player All you need is the chip, and usually the OEM will list what the chip MFG states anyway. You'll need ALL of the chips in existence, and you'd find some are not putting out enough noise to be detected in a typical scenario. Maybe if you put a scanner up against the device. Is that really useful? If you had the device out already, no further scanning is needed at all unless you have far-fetched idea like if the MP3 recorder were built into a shoe-heel or a clock, etc. Even then, it's a matter of scenario. If that scenario doesn't allow getting the scanner close enough to find the shoe is a source, you'll never even know it was suspicious there was a noisey shoe. I've gone off on a tangent though, for our purposes an MP3 player should be considered what is bought off the shelf. OEMs do not "list what the chip MFG states". Most often you have to tear open the specific player and examine it yourself, or rely on reports from someone else who has. and "spec" really means, hardware support as it can't be selected at random like with most computers running soft codecs. Even so, this rate is not usually a separate oscillator, Usually you have an external clock needed to feed the codec. That clock can be detected as well. Again you are thinking of older electronics, today's player/recorders are highly integrated. That doesn't mean ALL devices will have a different or undetectable, or indistinuishable clock signal, but it does mean you don't have a commonality that allows detection as an MP3 player, let alone one recording. No, it does not. Without a sampling rate, there will be no conversion of analog to digital. The existence of a sampling rate does not suggest it is always the same rate nor that it is measureable in any particular scenario. You have to take so many samples of the analog signal. Yes, but this does not lead to any of the other conclusions. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"Alexander Grigoriev" wrote in message ink.net... It all boils down to a weapon vs armor arms race. Suppose one vendor produced a device that can detect some device which samples at 8 kHz. More likely it will detect frequencies that are multiple of 8 KHz. Then, an MP3 recorder doesn't have to use any external xtal frequency which is n*8000 - an on-chip PLL is commonplace. A mic is connected directly to the chip, so it won't give any EMI. Most reliable signature would be periodic access to the flash serial interface, though. Still, if someone wants to record a conversation, undetected, a custom shield may be manufactured for the recorder (like 1 mm of permalloy/copper sandwich), and bingo: no detection. Right it's a secret part of an "arms race", but the same lab(s) are developing surveillance equipment and counter- surveillance equipment. With unlimited funding, you can have your "Undetectable Device" and you can have a Device to detect the undetectable. It becomes what you can have at what cost and in what numbers. The more expensive and rare devices are reserved for the most sensitive and vital situations. It is in the interest of those working the counter-surveillance side, that those thinking of using a surveillance device, not know the likelihood of their being an effective detection device in play or not. Things electronic get cheaper all the time, last year's rare laboratory sensor may well be in next year's field unit. Luck; Ken |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
Aly wrote:
Joey wrote in message ... Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. Your only real option is to hold your meetings in the middle of field, and for everyone to be naked. Don't forget the full cavity search before and after. 8) |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv wrote:
Aly wrote: Joey wrote in message ... Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. Your only real option is to hold your meetings in the middle of field, and for everyone to be naked. Don't forget the full cavity search before and after. 8) With the size these things are getting today, some Xt-ray imaging will also be necessary.... Arno |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:19:33 -0500, chrisv
wrote: Aly wrote: Joey wrote in message ... Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. Your only real option is to hold your meetings in the middle of field, and for everyone to be naked. Don't forget the full cavity search before and after. 8) .... and the two layers of sound insulating walls so directional mics can't pick anything up. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
|
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
Joey wrote:
Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. If they used a older-style dictation machine based on tape then you could detect the electromagnetic transmissions from the dictation machine when it was recording. But how would you detect if someone was secretly recording with an MP3 player that recorded to flash memory? Is there some transmission which could be detected? Perhaps some low power ultra high frequency from chip refresh cycles? WEll, you could just stick an antenna up next to the player and see. This is what a sandisk looks like playing mp3s. Can you tell which trace is of the sandisk? Reading the title is cheating... http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/nothin.jpg http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/sandisk.jpg mike |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
Can you also wrap sandisk in copper foil and do the same exercise?
"mike" wrote in message news:odAZg.3099$3C6.2932@trnddc04... Joey wrote: Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. If they used a older-style dictation machine based on tape then you could detect the electromagnetic transmissions from the dictation machine when it was recording. But how would you detect if someone was secretly recording with an MP3 player that recorded to flash memory? Is there some transmission which could be detected? Perhaps some low power ultra high frequency from chip refresh cycles? WEll, you could just stick an antenna up next to the player and see. This is what a sandisk looks like playing mp3s. Can you tell which trace is of the sandisk? Reading the title is cheating... http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/nothin.jpg http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/sandisk.jpg mike |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
Alexander Grigoriev wrote:
Can you also wrap sandisk in copper foil and do the same exercise? If you can't the see anything without the foil, why would you expect a change with copper foil? Now, if you wrappped all the radio/tv/pager/cellphones in copper foil... mike "mike" wrote in message news:odAZg.3099$3C6.2932@trnddc04... Joey wrote: Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. If they used a older-style dictation machine based on tape then you could detect the electromagnetic transmissions from the dictation machine when it was recording. But how would you detect if someone was secretly recording with an MP3 player that recorded to flash memory? Is there some transmission which could be detected? Perhaps some low power ultra high frequency from chip refresh cycles? WEll, you could just stick an antenna up next to the player and see. This is what a sandisk looks like playing mp3s. Can you tell which trace is of the sandisk? Reading the title is cheating... http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/nothin.jpg http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/sandisk.jpg mike |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:01:47 +0100, Joey wrote: On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:37:24 -0800, "Dana" wrote: [...] It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices proves detection of an MP3 player recording. Rather, it is your burden to be specific with the claim that it's possible by showing even one reproducible example. We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too vaguely) posed, would allow identification of a device as an MP3 player that is recording. Identifying the existence of "some" kind of device, then a search uncovering this device and a physical examination to determine that it is recording (looking at the screen or lights) is another matter. I can clarify whatever you are unsure about if it helps. The specific scenario should have been, needed to be mentioned at the opening of the thread. Because it wasn't, the time spent on the thread wasn't very productive and many have lost interest. Actually it is only for those who need extra info that I can provide clarification. Most others here don't seem to have that need. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"Joey" wrote in message ... On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote: On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:01:47 +0100, Joey wrote: On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:37:24 -0800, "Dana" wrote: [...] It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices proves detection of an MP3 player recording. Rather, it is your burden to be specific with the claim that it's possible by showing even one reproducible example. We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too vaguely) posed, would allow identification of a device as an MP3 player that is recording. Identifying the existence of "some" kind of device, then a search uncovering this device and a physical examination to determine that it is recording (looking at the screen or lights) is another matter. I can clarify whatever you are unsure about if it helps. The specific scenario should have been, needed to be mentioned at the opening of the thread. Because it wasn't, the time spent on the thread wasn't very productive and many have lost interest. Actually it is only for those who need extra info that I can provide clarification. Most others here don't seem to have that need. There are devices you can use that will detect devices that may be used to record your conversations. You will not be able to identify that it is an mp3 player until after a physical search. So by using this device that basically will tell you that the person has some form of electronic device on them, be it a cell phone or mp3 player. You can then use the knowledge of knowing they have this device to direct what you say or do not say You may want to spend a few bucks and talk with a local private investigator about your concerns. He may also know where to obtain these type of scanners. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:42:20 +0100, Joey
wrote: On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote: On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:01:47 +0100, Joey wrote: On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:37:24 -0800, "Dana" wrote: [...] It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices proves detection of an MP3 player recording. Rather, it is your burden to be specific with the claim that it's possible by showing even one reproducible example. We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too vaguely) posed, would allow identification of a device as an MP3 player that is recording. Identifying the existence of "some" kind of device, then a search uncovering this device and a physical examination to determine that it is recording (looking at the screen or lights) is another matter. I can clarify whatever you are unsure about if it helps. The specific scenario should have been, needed to be mentioned at the opening of the thread. Because it wasn't, the time spent on the thread wasn't very productive and many have lost interest. Actually it is only for those who need extra info that I can provide clarification. Most others here don't seem to have that need. For your thread to have a productive outcome it needed to be posted either in the opening post or soon thereafter. Even now you are withholding this info so we have to assume you don't really care. If for some reason you were overly paranoid about something, you would merely leave out any specifics that were identifying. |
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:54:33 -0400, kony wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:42:20 +0100, Joey wrote: On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote: On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:01:47 +0100, Joey wrote: On 14 Oct 2006, kony wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:37:24 -0800, "Dana" wrote: [...] It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices proves detection of an MP3 player recording. Rather, it is your burden to be specific with the claim that it's possible by showing even one reproducible example. We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too vaguely) posed, would allow identification of a device as an MP3 player that is recording. Identifying the existence of "some" kind of device, then a search uncovering this device and a physical examination to determine that it is recording (looking at the screen or lights) is another matter. I can clarify whatever you are unsure about if it helps. The specific scenario should have been, needed to be mentioned at the opening of the thread. Because it wasn't, the time spent on the thread wasn't very productive and many have lost interest. Actually it is only for those who need extra info that I can provide clarification. Most others here don't seem to have that need. For your thread to have a productive outcome it needed to be posted either in the opening post or soon thereafter. Even now you are withholding this info so we have to assume you don't really care. If for some reason you were overly paranoid about something, you would merely leave out any specifics that were identifying. You've just been espionaged! (What a wonderful word!) Anybody who's been following this thread, and understands the general field, now has a pretty good idea of the state-of-the-art in surreptitiously recording spy-vs-spy. The initial conditions either weren't considered and were accidental, or were tailored exactly to get this state-of-the-art summary. The question is, WHO have you been espionaged by? Industrial spies? Terrorist spies? Government spies? Other categories of spies? An author writing a techno thriller? All of the above. Who would want to know that kind of information? (Just what seems to me an obvious paranoid possibility. It would be a lot more fun than asking on the writer's help boards.) Have a happy Halloween! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com