|
|
Posted by MI5-Victim on 11/28/06 14:28
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= MI5: bugging and counter-surveillance -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PO: >Did you ever look for the bugs in your house ? If not, why not ? I mean if
PO: >I thought that was happening to me, I'd search the place from top to bottom,
PO: >I mean I live there I would know if anything was out of place. If I was
PO: >really suspicious, I would call in one of those bug detection teams which
PO: >have those machines that pick up the transmitted radio waves. This
PO: >reminds me of BUGS, that new programme on BBC1 on
That's exactly what we did. We went to a competent, professional detective
agency in London, paid them over 400 quid to debug our house. They used
scanner devices which go to over 1 GHz and would pick up any nearby
transmitter in that range, they also checked the phones and found
nothing... but if the tap was at the exchange, then they wouldn't find
anything, would they?
CS: >Doesn't this suggest to you that there are, in fact, no bugs to be found?
You can assume that they've done this sort of thing to other people in more
"serious" cases, where they would know the targets would suspect the
presence of electronic surveillance. So they will have developed techniques
and devices which are not readily detectable either by visual inspection or
by electronic means. What those techniques might be, I couldn't guess.
In this case, the existence of bugging devices was clear from the
beginning, and they "rubbed it in" with what was said by the boy on the
coach. It was almost as if they wanted counter-surveillance people to be
called in, who they knew would fail to detect the bugging devices, causing
loss of credibility to the other things I would have to say relating to the
harassment.
I did all the things someone in my situation would do to try to find the
bugs. In addition to calling in professional help using electronic
counter-surveillance, I made a close visual inspection of electrical
equipment, plus any points where audio or video surveillance devices might
have been concealed. Of course, I found nothing. Normal surveillance
"mini-cameras" are quite noticeable and require visible supporting
circuitry. It seems to me the best place to put a small video surveillance
device would be additional to a piece of electronic equipment such as a TV
or video. It would be necessary to physically break in to a property to fit
such a device.
69
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|