"Joey" wrote in message
...
On 10 Oct 2006, kony wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:51:51 +0100, Joey
wrote:


You say, "search them physically"? I have to tell you that I don;'t
work in the sort of environment where that kind of behaviour is
considered acceptable!


Then the only practical alternative remaining is to have
them consent to and go through a metal detector, and of
course it has to be actively manned to discriminate a
potential recorder from some other device, object, etc.

If you find what might be an MP player, you won't be able to
determine if it's recording, rather than playing, or if
recording off the radio. Unless MP3 players become
illegal devices, or at least clearly posted as banned on
private premises, you can't justify a search or seizure
either (depending on laws in your locale). If private
property, the other party may still refuse a search and
seizure attempt.

Even scanning for such a device's radiated energy at
entrance to an area, that wouldn't prevent them from turning
on the device later. Unless you have the expectation that
you can seize such equipment, you should follow the same
guidelines you should have otherwise- not saying anything of
importance in the presence of someone who can't be trusted
not to repeat, reproduce, etc., in any way.

Ultimately going to such extra lengths will tend to make
people suspect you have something to hide and put your
activities under more scrutiny.


Thanks Kony. So the MP3 recorder is essentially undetectable during its
operation. OK. Thanks.

Maybe that explains why I can't find any follow-on products for tape
recorder detection while many of the the older devices are no longer
available.

It should not come as a surprise, that security concerns that
deal in high level technological detection devices, don't
advertise to the general public that much. Search harder.

Luck;
Ken

"Ken Maltby" wrote in message
...

"Joey" wrote in message
...
On 10 Oct 2006, kony wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:51:51 +0100, Joey
wrote:


You say, "search them physically"? I have to tell you that I don;'t
work in the sort of environment where that kind of behaviour is
considered acceptable!


Then the only practical alternative remaining is to have
them consent to and go through a metal detector, and of
course it has to be actively manned to discriminate a
potential recorder from some other device, object, etc.

If you find what might be an MP player, you won't be able to
determine if it's recording, rather than playing, or if
recording off the radio. Unless MP3 players become
illegal devices, or at least clearly posted as banned on
private premises, you can't justify a search or seizure
either (depending on laws in your locale). If private
property, the other party may still refuse a search and
seizure attempt.

Even scanning for such a device's radiated energy at
entrance to an area, that wouldn't prevent them from turning
on the device later. Unless you have the expectation that
you can seize such equipment, you should follow the same
guidelines you should have otherwise- not saying anything of
importance in the presence of someone who can't be trusted
not to repeat, reproduce, etc., in any way.

Ultimately going to such extra lengths will tend to make
people suspect you have something to hide and put your
activities under more scrutiny.


Thanks Kony. So the MP3 recorder is essentially undetectable during its
operation. OK. Thanks.

Maybe that explains why I can't find any follow-on products for tape
recorder detection while many of the the older devices are no longer
available.

It should not come as a surprise, that security concerns that
deal in high level technological detection devices, don't
advertise to the general public that much. Search harder.


I hinted at that a couple of days ago.
It has been amusing watching some of the replies from some of the people
here.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:36:48 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:


Acoustic energy then, what the microphone/audio detection
picks up. (It will cover more frequencies that humans can
hear.)

The pattern is on at a particular time then off, it varies in
certain ways that will enable further analysis of any:
IF and RF?
Intermediate Frequencies (IF) or Radio Frequencies (RF)
given off by a device reacting to the pattern of sound.
If there is any IF or RF detected that corresponds/matches
the on off times of the pattern of sound, you know there is
a device responding to the sound in the room.

A more sophisticated analysis of the detected response
to the pattern, can provide a great deal of information
about the device detected. That would be beyond the
scope of your question, and your security clearance, as
well.


I'm not so sure this technique will work with an IC that has
constant current, continual encoding of even silence as a
typical MP3 player/recorder is likely to use. There might
be a theoretical difference but one far more difficult to
measure than even anything at all from the device.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:36:48 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:


Acoustic energy then, what the microphone/audio detection
picks up. (It will cover more frequencies that humans can
hear.)

The pattern is on at a particular time then off, it varies in
certain ways that will enable further analysis of any:
IF and RF?
Intermediate Frequencies (IF) or Radio Frequencies (RF)
given off by a device reacting to the pattern of sound.
If there is any IF or RF detected that corresponds/matches
the on off times of the pattern of sound, you know there is
a device responding to the sound in the room.

A more sophisticated analysis of the detected response
to the pattern, can provide a great deal of information
about the device detected. That would be beyond the
scope of your question, and your security clearance, as
well.


I'm not so sure this technique will work with an IC that has
constant current, continual encoding of even silence as a
typical MP3 player/recorder is likely to use. There might
be a theoretical difference but one far more difficult to
measure than even anything at all from the device.

You would be surprised at what is being done.
As one of my techs used to say. "Noise, what Noise".
But then this stuff tends to be kind of pricey.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:36:48 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:


Acoustic energy then, what the microphone/audio detection
picks up. (It will cover more frequencies that humans can
hear.)

The pattern is on at a particular time then off, it varies in
certain ways that will enable further analysis of any:
IF and RF?
Intermediate Frequencies (IF) or Radio Frequencies (RF)
given off by a device reacting to the pattern of sound.
If there is any IF or RF detected that corresponds/matches
the on off times of the pattern of sound, you know there is
a device responding to the sound in the room.

A more sophisticated analysis of the detected response
to the pattern, can provide a great deal of information
about the device detected. That would be beyond the
scope of your question, and your security clearance, as
well.


I'm not so sure this technique will work with an IC that has
constant current, continual encoding of even silence as a
typical MP3 player/recorder is likely to use. There might
be a theoretical difference but one far more difficult to
measure than even anything at all from the device.

You know how an IC gives off heat in relation to how
hard it is working, ("constant current" is a myth) heat is
only one part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Switching
devices certainly produce as much "noise" when they
operate as analog devices, more in most cases. We have
devices that can detect very, very low wattage signals.

Luck;
Ken

Impmon wrote in news:b59oi2tuh78itfnupp6n0j04teksmeeuqp@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:54:06 +0100, Joey wrote:

What is "3 AM".

On digital clock, it would read 3:00 and the PM indicator would be
off.

On analoug clock, the big hand would be pointing at 12 and small hand
at 3 and outside should be still dark (no sun)

Not very helpful for those of us who are residing in prison with no access
to an outside window.

--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgb neguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqg urerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbh ernqlgborurnegoebxra

Joey wrote in message
...
On 10 Oct 2006, Aly wrote:



Is that right?

Hear this radio programme (under 30 mins).
Use whichever protocol works best for you, both are the same.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/...eingbugged.ram
rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/radio4/science/beingbugged.ra

Sorry for my rather unhelpful reply, I'm having one of my moments where I
only talk to microcontrollers.

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.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Jamie t wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage 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?


Not really. You could maybe detect that it was turned on with
an RF scanner. But if it is low power enough (most MP3 players
are, since they are optimised for that) and well shielded, you
would likely get nothing in today's RF polluted environment.
In addition the attacker may just add some more shielding to be
sure. I think you can basically forget about this, unless you
can take the devices away from people.

Arno

i have seen a device used by an electrical instructor at a trade
school. he does not like any Cell, recorders or electronic devices
active while in his class. this device will buzz and vibrate in his
pocket as he walks around the class, he can walk right up to the
student that has something on.. it works by detecting a variation
of known R.F. frequencies that helps him decide on an LCD screen of
the device what it could be, and then it has wide band detection of
any R.F. generation.. as you know, most devices do generate some
R.F. of some freq.. i've seen it in use and its on the
market... all i can say is by his words, "it works very good"

That sounds like BS to me. Of course cellphones are very easy to
detect that way, and I expect that is what he is showing off. Forget
about non-woreless devices. They have several orders of magnitude
less RF emanations. This guy is likely demonstrating with
cellphones and then claiming he can detect the other things
without ever demonstrating.

Arno

Jamie t wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage 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?


Not really. You could maybe detect that it was turned on with
an RF scanner. But if it is low power enough (most MP3 players
are, since they are optimised for that) and well shielded, you
would likely get nothing in today's RF polluted environment.
In addition the attacker may just add some more shielding to be
sure. I think you can basically forget about this, unless you
can take the devices away from people.

Arno
i have seen a device used by an electrical instructor at a trade
school. he does not like any Cell, recorders or electronic devices
active while in his class.
this device will buzz and vibrate in his pocket as he walks around
the class, he can walk right up to the student that has something on..
it works by detecting a variation of known R.F. frequencies that
helps him decide on an LCD screen of the device what it could be, and
then it has wide band detection of any R.F. generation..
as you know, most devices do generate some R.F. of some freq..
i've seen it in use and its on the market... all i can say is by
his words, "it works very good"

Trouble is that he cant know about the devices his doesnt detect.

Arno Wagner wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage 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?


Not really. You could maybe detect that it was turned on with
an RF scanner. But if it is low power enough (most MP3 players
are, since they are optimised for that) and well shielded, you
would likely get nothing in today's RF polluted environment.
In addition the attacker may just add some more shielding to be
sure. I think you can basically forget about this, unless you
can take the devices away from people.

Arno
i have seen a device used by an electrical instructor at a trade school.
he does not like any Cell, recorders or electronic devices active while
in his class.
this device will buzz and vibrate in his pocket as he walks around
the class, he can walk right up to the student that has something on..
it works by detecting a variation of known R.F. frequencies that helps
him decide on an LCD screen of the device what it could be, and then it
has wide band detection of any R.F. generation..
as you know, most devices do generate some R.F. of some freq..
i've seen it in use and its on the market... all i can say is by
his words, "it works very good"


--
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5