From: Jon <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.british,uk.media
Subject: Surveillance
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:20:19 +0100
Organization: -
Lines: 29
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email hidden]>
References: <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jongru.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: jongru.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 1.12 <nQyLm4IxRmtU60uHtPa$08ppe9>
In article <[email hidden]>, "B.Jury" <[email hidden]>
writes
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:... 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.I would imagine it is quite easy to compleatly hida a camera, even in
a familar enviroment, such as a persons home. You only need a hole the
size of a pin hole, for the camera to see through.
This is true. I frequently employ private detectives to spy on people
(there's a good reason for this and I'll tell you if you guess
correctly) and one such detective showed me the latest technology only
last week. A small rucksack. One strap of the rucksack has a tiny hole
in it that you wouldn't notice unless someone pointed to it. That's the
camera: the wires lead into the rucksack itself where there is a video
tape recorder little bigger than a Walkman. I don't know if that's what
Roger Cook uses but it certainly explains why it is that the subject can
look straight into the lens and not realise (s)he's being filmed. Now, I
say "latest technology" and I think that's the technology that the
police use as well as the retired police who become private detectives,
but no doubt the security services have far more sophisticated
equipment.
--
Jon
3290
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access