UK and Europe · Public discussion

M,I-5,Persecuti on bugging a nd cou nter-surveillance

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 1 post · 242 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
1 January 2008
Last activity
1 January 2008
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
242
Views / 30 days
1

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–1 of 1
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    -= 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.

    3154

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.