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.