From: James M. Atkinson Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 4:06pm Subject: Performance Standards - RF Survey I would like to propose some discussion and get some some feedback from other list members concerning the detection of RF fields during a TSCM survey. As we know eavesdroppers like to exploit the RF spectrum, and that every spy shop carries various toys that show up all up and down the RF spectrum. Typically, if the TSCM specialist can get within just a few wavelengths of the device it can be detected 100% of the time even with primitive products such as broadband field detectors, or feedback detectors. The only problem is that the farther we move away from the device the greater the difficulty of detection due to reduced signal levels. Getting really close to the eavesdropping device is well and good, but when you get to close to the area your checking for bugs the greater the likelihood that you will tip off the eavesdropper. Take for example an eavesdropping situation where the bug is a video transmitter in a clock on an executive desk. By the time you drag your equipment cases into the office to be inspected and set up the bug detection equipment for the sweep the eavesdropper already has been watching and/or listening to you for 20-30 minutes. Because of this, we initially set up some distance away and direct our equipment toward the area that will be inspecting to see if we can sniff out any potential eavesdropping signal of interest. We then move closer, repeat, and then move closer until we are inside the area actually being checked. Since the TSCM'er is some distance away and the signals are fairly low level we have to use some sophisticated equipment to pull the signal up to a level where it can be detected. I would suggest that 100 percent of the time a TSCM specialist must be able to detect and pinpoint a (not greater then) -50 dBm NBFM signal from a remote (171 or 400 MHz) source at distance of at least 50 feet and passing though at least two interior walls. If we drop the power levels even further so that we have no more then -80 dBm coming off the signal source antenna, push the distances out to 300 feet, and add an exterior wall and 2-3 more interior walls we come up with an even better "detection model" where you should be able to detect the signal better then 99% of the time (at a distance of 300 feet). What all this means is that we need to be using equipment with a sensitivity of well under -100 dBm, and we need to have the ability to isolate the signal (using directional antennas and methods) while still some distance from the area being checked. I routinely use a calibrated -130 dBm signal (.1 uV) with a 1 kHz sliver FM modulated signal for equipment function checks (with the antenna's 24 inches apart). -jma -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Bug Sweep, Spy Hunting, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James M. AtkinsonPhone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island GroupFax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008mailto:jmatk@t... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. - George Orwell -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4864 From: James M. Atkinson Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 6:45pm Subject: Re: Performance Standards - RF Survey [errata] Oops, I made a typo: The line should have read "... -130 dBm signal (well below.1 uV) with a 1 kHz..." I would point out that -130 dBm = -23 dBuV and -117 dBm (into a 50 ohm load) would be .1 uV I apologize for the error, mea cupla. -jma [snip] >I routinely use a calibrated -130 dBm signal (.1 uV) with a 1 kHz >sliver FM modulated signal for equipment function checks (with the >antenna's 24 inches apart). > >-jma > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Bug Sweep, Spy Hunting, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James M. AtkinsonPhone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island GroupFax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008mailto:jmatk@t... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. - George Orwell -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4865 From: tek492p Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 7:07pm Subject: Re: Performance Standards - RF Survey My main piece of "RF detection" equipment consists of a Tektronix 492 spectrum analyzer and a Diamond D-130J 25-to-1300 Mhz discone antenna. (I have other antennas for higher frequencies). I also have a "test transmitter", (manufactured by Vega), which is basically a motion picture wireless microphone. The frequency is 169.925 Mhz, 50 mW, NBFM. Another "test transmitter", (manufactured by Com-Tek), also a motion picture wireless microphone, transmits on 72.1 MHZ, 25 mW, NBFM. I am also an amateur (ham) radio operator, and have about a dozen, or more, various transmitters ranging in frequency from 40 MHz to 500 Mhz, with power levels from 10 mW to 100 mW. Some I bought, some I built myself from scratch, some are audio modulated, others are just "oscillators". A source for "wireless microphones", is your local Radio Shack or electronics store. Anyway, (and getting to the point), I set-up the spectrum analyzer in my house with the discone antenna. Then I walk around the neighborhood at night with several of my "test transmitters", and place them next to the side of a house at various distances from a few houses away to several blocks. Depending on the power level and number of buildings, parked cars, and bushes, I can detect my test transmitters anywhere from 300 to 1,000 feet away. While this is not a "calibrated" test, it does give me a very good idea of the real world detection capabilities of my 492-with-discone antenna set-up. Jack Lindauer Intertect TSCM services Los Angeles (818) 831-0515 --- In TSCM-L@y..., "James M. Atkinson" wrote: > > I would like to propose some discussion and get some some feedback > from other list members concerning the detection of RF fields during > a TSCM survey. > > > I would suggest that 100 percent of the time a TSCM specialist must > be able to detect and pinpoint a (not greater then) -50 dBm NBFM > signal from a remote (171 or 400 MHz) source at distance of at least > 50 feet and passing though at least two interior walls. > > If we drop the power levels even further so that we have no more then > -80 dBm coming off the signal source antenna, push the distances out > to 300 feet, and add an exterior wall and 2-3 more interior walls we > come up with an even better "detection model" where you should be > able to detect the signal better then 99% of the time (at a distance > of 300 feet). > > > -jma 4866 From: Steve Uhrig Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 6:22pm Subject: What are decibels and what do they mean to me? Once upon a midnight dreary, James M. Atkinson pondered, weak and weary: > I would suggest that 100 percent of the time a TSCM specialist must > be able to detect and pinpoint a (not greater then) -50 dBm NBFM > signal from a remote (171 or 400 MHz) source at distance of at least 50 > feet and passing though at least two interior walls. -50 dBm is 1x10^(-8) watts, or 0.01 microwatts, or 1/100 of a microwatt, or 1/100th of a millionth of a watt, or 1 nanowatt if I did all the math correctly in my head. Such power levels at any frequency or any mode will not radiate the length of your arm unless possibly in a vacuum. The noise level in your equipment will be much higher. There may be an error in this -50 dBm spec. A typical Cony or Deco or similar common bug transmits a signal of perhaps +13dBm (20 milliwatts) into a probably inefficient antenna. Most of these are WBFM, but it makes no difference. That would be a more realistic spec to look for, as radiated from the hostile or test device, not as received at the input to the TSCM equipment. As a guide for others, remember dBm is a reference power level compared to a milliwatt. The lower case m in dBm means milliwatt. The d in dBm means deci, or 1/10, of a Bel. The capital B is Bel, in honor of Alexander Graham. Since a Bel is a fairly large amount, we use decibels, or dB, which is 1/10 of a Bel, or 0.1 Bel. We write this as dB, and if referenced to 1 milliwatt (remember watt is power), 1 dBm. When writing these figures, a positive number is assumed unless a -- (minus) sign is specified. A positive sign can be used, but if not, the number is assumed to be positive. 3 dB is twice or one half, depending on which way you are going. So 3dBm means twice 0dBm, or 2 milliwatts. -3dBm would be 1/2 of a milliwatt, or 0.5 milliwatts, or 500 microwatts. 10 dB is ten times, or 1/10th, again depending on which way you are going. So -10dBm is 1/10 of a milliwatt, or 0.1 miliwatt, or 100 microwatts. A microwatt is a millionth of a watt. A milliwatt is, of course, a thousandth of a watt. -20 dBm is read as (1/10th of 1/10th), or 1/100. Or 1/100 of a milliwatt, which is 10 microwatts. -30 dBm is (1/10th of 1/10th of 1/10th), or 1/1000 overall, or 0.001 of a milliwatt, or 1 microwatt. -40dBm is 1/10th of a microwatt, or 0.1 microwatts. -50 dBm is (1/10th of 1/10th), or 1/100th of a microwatt overall, or 0.01 microwatts. 1/100th of a MICROWATT. To further explain, every 3 dB doubles or halves the power level. Doubles if positive, halves if negative. Every 10 dB multiplies power by 10 if positive, or divides by 10 if negative. EVERYONE should master the above, which is the most basic of electronics theory. Then when some place specifies a power output of a device as +13 dBm, you will know it is 20 milliwatts (1 milliwatt times 10dB = 10 milliwatts, then again times 3dB doubles to 20 milliwatts). Sometimes places try to disguise power output levels by referencing them in dB. dB is a relative level. If you say 10 dB gain, you have to say 10dB referenced to WHAT? 10dB is ten times, but ten times WHAT? If it is written as 10 dBm, then you know they mean 10 times one milliwatt, also stated as 10 dB referenced to 1 milliwatt. The lower case m means milliwatt. so 10 dBm is 10 milliwatts. 0dBm is 1 milliwatt of power, and you can go from there. Read all the above until it makes sense. The important thing to master is 10dB is 10 times or 1/10th (if negative), and 3dB is twice or one half (one half if negative.) +10dB =10 times the power -10dB=1/10th the power (negative) +3dB=twice the power -3dB=one half the power (negative) Learn the few lines above, and you will be able to read specs and spec sheets like a pro. I recommend printing this message and saving it, or putting it in your paper documentation you carry with your sweep gear. The wizards out there, please correct me if I made any errors above. I am on some pretty severe preop meds preceding back surgery tomorrow morning. Can barely focus and am an absolute bubblehead, but I think the above is correct. Steve ******************************************************************* Steve Uhrig, SWS Security, Maryland (USA) Mfrs of electronic surveillance equip mailto:Steve@s... website http://www.swssec.com tel +1+410-879-4035, fax +1+410-836-1190 "In God we trust, all others we monitor" ******************************************************************* 4867 From: john schmitt Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:23pm Subject: Re: What are decibels and what do they mean to me? Dear Steve, I'm hopeful your surgery is painless and successful, but your math lexicon is a little off. A nanowatt is 1 billionth of a watt, 10^-9 being the general definition of nano. Nano, nano, as Mork used to say. Your advice to TSCM novices is a good start but rather than just printing off your notes they ought to have a good basic math course with logarithmic concepts such as what decibels are based upon. I'd venture that your lesson about how 13 db is 20x is lost on most people who don't have the basis concepts. John Schmitt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Uhrig" To: Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:22 PM Subject: [TSCM-L] What are decibels and what do they mean to me? > Once upon a midnight dreary, James M. Atkinson pondered, weak and weary: > > > I would suggest that 100 percent of the time a TSCM specialist must > > be able to detect and pinpoint a (not greater then) -50 dBm NBFM > > signal from a remote (171 or 400 MHz) source at distance of at least 50 > > feet and passing though at least two interior walls. > > -50 dBm is 1x10^(-8) watts, or 0.01 microwatts, or 1/100 of a microwatt, > or 1/100th of a millionth of a watt, or 1 nanowatt if I did all the math > correctly in my head. > > Such power levels at any frequency or any mode will not radiate the > length of your arm unless possibly in a vacuum. > > The noise level in your equipment will be much higher. > > There may be an error in this -50 dBm spec. > > A typical Cony or Deco or similar common bug transmits a signal of > perhaps +13dBm (20 milliwatts) into a probably inefficient antenna. Most > of these are WBFM, but it makes no difference. That would be a more > realistic spec to look for, as radiated from the hostile or test device, > not as received at the input to the TSCM equipment. > > As a guide for others, remember dBm is a reference power level compared > to a milliwatt. The lower case m in dBm means milliwatt. The d in dBm > means deci, or 1/10, of a Bel. The capital B is Bel, in honor of > Alexander Graham. Since a Bel is a fairly large amount, we use decibels, > or dB, which is 1/10 of a Bel, or 0.1 Bel. We write this as dB, and if > referenced to 1 milliwatt (remember watt is power), 1 dBm. > > When writing these figures, a positive number is assumed unless a -- > (minus) sign is specified. A positive sign can be used, but if not, the > number is assumed to be positive. > > 3 dB is twice or one half, depending on which way you are going. So 3dBm > means twice 0dBm, or 2 milliwatts. -3dBm would be 1/2 of a milliwatt, or > 0.5 milliwatts, or 500 microwatts. > > 10 dB is ten times, or 1/10th, again depending on which way you are > going. So -10dBm is 1/10 of a milliwatt, or 0.1 miliwatt, or 100 > microwatts. A microwatt is a millionth of a watt. A milliwatt is, of > course, a thousandth of a watt. > > -20 dBm is read as (1/10th of 1/10th), or 1/100. Or 1/100 of a milliwatt, > which is 10 microwatts. > > -30 dBm is (1/10th of 1/10th of 1/10th), or 1/1000 overall, or 0.001 of a > milliwatt, or 1 microwatt. > > -40dBm is 1/10th of a microwatt, or 0.1 microwatts. > > -50 dBm is (1/10th of 1/10th), or 1/100th of a microwatt overall, or 0.01 > microwatts. 1/100th of a MICROWATT. > > To further explain, every 3 dB doubles or halves the power level. Doubles > if positive, halves if negative. > > Every 10 dB multiplies power by 10 if positive, or divides by 10 if > negative. > > EVERYONE should master the above, which is the most basic of electronics > theory. Then when some place specifies a power output of a device as +13 > dBm, you will know it is 20 milliwatts (1 milliwatt times 10dB = 10 > milliwatts, then again times 3dB doubles to 20 milliwatts). Sometimes > places try to disguise power output levels by referencing them in dB. > > dB is a relative level. If you say 10 dB gain, you have to say 10dB > referenced to WHAT? 10dB is ten times, but ten times WHAT? If it is > written as 10 dBm, then you know they mean 10 times one milliwatt, also > stated as 10 dB referenced to 1 milliwatt. The lower case m means > milliwatt. so 10 dBm is 10 milliwatts. 0dBm is 1 milliwatt of power, and > you can go from there. > > Read all the above until it makes sense. The important thing to master is > 10dB is 10 times or 1/10th (if negative), and 3dB is twice or one half > (one half if negative.) > > +10dB = 10 times the power > -10dB = 1/10th the power (negative) > > +3dB = twice the power > -3dB = one half the power (negative) > > Learn the few lines above, and you will be able to read specs and spec > sheets like a pro. > > I recommend printing this message and saving it, or putting it in your > paper documentation you carry with your sweep gear. > > The wizards out there, please correct me if I made any errors above. I am > on some pretty severe preop meds preceding back surgery tomorrow morning. > Can barely focus and am an absolute bubblehead, but I think the above is > correct. > > Steve > > ******************************************************************* > Steve Uhrig, SWS Security, Maryland (USA) > Mfrs of electronic surveillance equip > mailto:Steve@s... website http://www.swssec.com > tel +1+410-879-4035, fax +1+410-836-1190 > "In God we trust, all others we monitor" > ******************************************************************* > > > > ======================================================== > TSCM-L Technical Security Mailing List > "In a multitude of counselors there is strength" > > To subscribe to the TSCM-L mailing list visit: > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/TSCM-L > > It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. > It is by the juice of Star Bucks that thoughts acquire speed, > the hands acquire shaking, the shaking is a warning. > It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. > =================================================== TSKS > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > 4868 From: James M. Atkinson Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:41am Subject: Tiny Insect Could Hold Key to Better Listening Devices [I can just see it now... the spy shops try to convince customers that by inserting a $5,000 genetically altered secret house fly into their ear canal that they can listen though walls at 300 feet. -jma] Fly Research Creates Buzz Tiny Insect Could Hold Key to Better Listening Devices By Jessica Rappaport, Tech Live Feb. 21 We all know the expression "if I could be a fly on the wall Š" But if you could be a fly, you would probably want to be the Ormia ochracea. This insect is only a quarter-inch long and together, its ears are smaller than a period at the end of a sentence. The ears may be tiny, but their directional hearing is so acute they are the basis of a biomimicry project that may lead to the next generation of hearing aids and spy microphones. A common complaint among hearing-aid users is that they are unable to focus on a speaker in a crowd because of all of the background noise. What hearing-aid wearers need is a device that offers better directional hearing. This is where the Ormia ochracea excels. Researchers hope to mimic the fly's hearing capabilities. Ten years ago, Cornell University professor Ron Hoy and biologist Daniel Robert from the University of Zurich started studying how the nervous systems of small animals work. They were interested in how the ears of the Ormia ochracea work. So they contacted professor Ronald Miles at Binghamton University because of his ability to measure the vibrations of small things. From Fly to Super Bug Slowly, the team located Ormia ochracea's eardrums, located just behind the fly's face. The ears are so close together the sound waves arrive only a few billionths of a second apart. The tissue bridge between the two eardrums amplifies the tiny time difference in sound wave arrival which gives the fly its exceptional hearing capabilities. After testing the fly and realizing how precise its hearing is, the team decided to apply the knowledge. The team developed a prototype that mimics the fly's hearing. The prototype is made of silicon and looks like a computer chip. "It's certainly an example of how engineers and technology can learn cool things from animals," Miles said. "It might be if someone was smart enough they would have been able to figure it out without looking at the animal, but I think that after looking at how this ear works it gave us different sorts of ideas on how you would make a microphone." The team is still several years away from producing commercial uses for this technology. But one day people may practically have the ability to be a fly on a wall, with hearing so precise they can listen in on all juiciest gossip. The first usable device is not expected until 2005, although researchers say that date could be pushed forward if national security concerns lead to an increase in research and development funding. Copyright 2002 TechTV, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Copyright © 2002 ABC News Internet Ventures. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Bug Sweep, Spy Hunting, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James M. AtkinsonPhone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island GroupFax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008mailto:jmatk@t... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt,1910 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4869 From: James M. Atkinson Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 4:00pm Subject: State of the Onion - 1230 live subscribers. The list may find it of interest that we now have 1230 subscribers. -jma -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Bug Sweep, Spy Hunting, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James M. AtkinsonPhone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island GroupFax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008mailto:jmatk@t... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt,1910 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4870 From: Steve Uhrig Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 5:10pm Subject: Felons on this list? ALL READ > From: "tek492p" > I am also an amateur (ham) radio operator, and have about a dozen, or > more, various transmitters ranging in frequency from 40 MHz to 500 > Mhz, with power levels from 10 mW to 100 mW. Some I bought, some I > built myself from scratch, some are audio modulated, others are just > "oscillators". Jack, you have just confessed in a public forum widely read by law enforcement, to committing a number of state and federal felonies. Ten seconds on QRZ.com will return your amateur call and physical address for any agency who wants to take you down. You can be certain copies of your post were printed and submitted by someone to Justice Dept, to some U.S Attorney somewhere. Jack, go to Jim's site www.tscm.com and READ AND MEMORIZE 18USC 2511 and 2512. Title 18 is the U.S. Criminal Code, BTW. It is a federal FELONY to possess any device primarily intended for electronic interception. Also a felony to advertise them to the public. And of course to use them. The ONLY exceptions are: 1)Government agencies. 2)Common carriers (paging companies, telephone companies, etc.) in their NORMAL course of business, and 3)PERSONS UNDER CONTRACT with a government agency to supply these devices. So unless you happen to have ongoing purchase orders (CONTRACT) continuously covering your sale of these devices to a government agency, every day you possess each one is a felony at both the federal and virtually all state levels. The government is up in arms over privacy issues now, and are foaming at the mouth to make an example of someone. Apparently you weren't in the business yet during the several coordinated large scale raids some years back, where persons in possession of these devices were dragged out in handcuffs, with the media alerted prior and TV cameras running. Many went to jail and virtually all had to find another career. They even got Spyking/SpyTurd aka Frank Jones, who was the Teflon Turd for 20 years. Felony. Parole. Can't travel without permission of your P.O. Can't own a firearm ever again for the rest of your life. Can't hold a passport for the rest of your life. Can't vote. Can't get a job in any government position. Can't get a job anywhere in security, or any place who runs background checks. Can't rent apartments or houses. Et al. A lot of these people taken down were identified by undercovers monitoring forums like this one. Others were by personal visits to shops. More were from examining customer lists from various vendors of the things. Enough people have forgotton, the left wing is screaming about privacy issues, and certain agencies are very willing to do their job, in this instance. They're ready to move again, and you're jumping up and down advertising, waving a red flag and begging to go on their list. Your only safe course of action right now is to surrender the things to your local law enforcement agency on your own terms, advising them you just learned your possession of them was illegal and you are surrendering them in accordance with the law. Get a receipt. That may be your Get Out Of Jail Free card. Don't tell them why you had them. You have the right not to be a witness against yourself. Deal with some busy desk sergeant or busy duty officer, get him to sign a receipt, and leave it at that. You do NOT want to go off into a back room with the detectives or tech guys and brag about being a sweeper. Cops hate sweepers. Cops hate anyone who tries to assume powers or authority they don't have. TSCMers have no more right to possess these gadgets than does a boy scout. Since the other transmitters you mentioned are not on amateur frequencies, the ones in your above paragraph likely are not either. Even if they were, the described operation would be illegal under amateur license rules (one way transmissions, no I.D., etc.). At a minimum, it will cost you your full time job if you work for anyone else, your own business, your life's savings, and you will have a criminal record the rest of your life. Oh, and of course your ham license. Hams are held to higher standards than the general public, because we are licensed, allegedly know the laws which govern us, and we are supposed to know better. Persons active in any facet of the security business fare worse than Joe Sixpack in raids, because you will be held to higher standards also. If you are in the security business, whether as a uniformed guard walking a post on midnight shift at a construction site, a full time TSCM'er, a PI (PI's also are licensed, so held to higher standards) or anything, you will be facing a hostile judge, a hostile prosecutor and a jury who votes as they are told by the judge. FOLKS -- LISTEN WELL THIS IS CRITICAL. READ THIS: Being in the TSCM business, or pretending to, or wanting to, DOES NOT confer on you any special privilege to possess surveillance equipment. Demonstrating the stuff to the wrong people, or if the Wrong People (to you, meaning government) learn of your possession, you WILL be charged with a felony. Your entire place will be raided. Everything will be confiscated down to trash cans and pencil sharpeners. Ask Ramsey. Ask EEB, now long out of business. Ask any of the 40+ places hit all at the same instant, nationwide, in the raids a few years ago. There is not one square inch of your facility that will not be tossed, and not a single electronic item left in your house/business/car/wherever. NO ONE is immune. You WILL NOT get away with it. A $20 kit is as illegal as anything. A zip gun will get you the same mandatory jail penalty as will carrying a Colt Python. I am in the unfortunate position at this immediate moment of testifying against a Maryland PI agency in cooperation with Maryland State Police. My testimony likely will put someone in jail. I may likely be called upon, as a well accepted long term expert court witness on electronic surveillance, to testify against you. This would sadden me. Doesn't matter if you run a training facility. Doesn't matter if you do demos. Doesn't matter if you claim to have found a bug on a job, and 99% of the people who claim this are lying anyway. In my entire career, spanning 30 years last month, I have found only a small number of devices or wired phones. When I did, I secured the area and notified the FBI or local law enforcement, whoever I could get, and stayed with the devices, not touching them, until the authorities arrived to take custody. The things are akin to a smoking gun. FELONY. You can't afford to fool around. In one case, I testified before the grand jury in Cranston, RI, and the bad guy was indicted and went to jail. Any of these TSCM training facilities who maintain surveillance devices allegedly for training have no legal grounds for having the things. They are as guilty as anyone else. And their nice new fancy buildings will be sold at some distress sale a few years after the raid, to pay legal bills. IT HAS HAPPENED. This is not speculation. This is not crying wolf. Dozens of guys spend months to years in jail cells merely for playing with the cheap Micro bugs. If you would happen to be one of the extremely few persons who ever actually locates an illicit surveillance device through your own efforts, you can't go with the wishes of your client, or wait to see who services it, or feed it false info. That makes you an accessory after the fact as well as a co-conspirator. A few more counts, and a few more years. Your only option is to call LE immediately and request they take custody. You may ask how some companies can advertise the things. In many, if not most, cases, the spy shops carry no inventory. They are committing a violation by advertising them, but only rarely do they actually possess the crap they claim to sell. Most are ripoffs or brokers at best. Some companies actually may have the things, and they go on a list to be raided along with 40 or 50 others around the country, all at the same hour, so they can't call each other and warn each other. That's the way it was done the last two times. More professional companies, legitimate manufacturers of professional devices actually used by law enforcement (you don't think they use $20 Cony bugs, do you?), sell only to government and more or less continuously have contracts to supply their products to government agencies. That is a clear exemption under 18USC 2511 and 2512. Claiming to 'sell to police' is meaningless, and we all hear it several times a week. Having a history (paper purchase orders from a government agency and copies of invoices as well as payments received) is the only thing that counts. Bottom line: Unless you have regular business, which you can document, providing electronic surveillance equipment to government agencies, you cannot possess audio surveillance, data, much video, anything which transmits, or much of what connects to the phone line. You will not be the one to decide what is legal and what is not. A prosecutor will, after most of what you own is hauled away in an 18 wheeler for a 3 month inventory, after which time you will be able to examine your files to prepare your defense at a government warehouse under government supervision 2 days a week for 2 hours at a time, and will have the privilege of copying your own files at 25 cents a page. You're not a big tough guy having bugs. You're a fool. I don't mean to address this specifically to Jack, but generically to the group. You WILL get caught, and you will not work in anything remotely related to security ever again. Save this message, print it, and refer to it frequently. This may be the most serious message you have yet read on this list. Steve (incidentally a ham, WA3SWS) ******************************************************************* Steve Uhrig, SWS Security, Maryland (USA) Mfrs of electronic surveillance equip mailto:Steve@s... website http://www.swssec.com tel +1+410-879-4035, fax +1+410-836-1190 "In God we trust, all others we monitor" ******************************************************************* 4871 From: Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 1:48pm Subject: Re: Felons on this list? ALL READ In a message dated 2/25/02 3:48:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, steve@s... writes: << You will not be the one to decide what is legal and what is not. A prosecutor will, after most of what you own is hauled away in an 18 wheeler for a 3 month inventory, >> It will be a longer period than three months. It's now procedure for the evidence to be reviewed by "multiple" agencies to insure that nothing is missed. 4872 From: Aimee Farr Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 7:24pm Subject: RE: Felons on this list? ALL READ > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Uhrig [mailto:steve@s...] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:11 PM > To: TSCM-L@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [TSCM-L] Felons on this list? ALL READ > After reading Steve's post, I feel like a puppy that wet the carpet, and I didn't do anything bad. Time has passed this law by. It is no longer consistent with the range of devices available, the advertising, or public awareness. It was written for law enforcement, with private interests as an afterthought in the congressional record. As it stands, the charlatans are likely to act in confidence (not that this isn't a security virtue) -- but they are also less likely to act in, or advocate, the public interest. They are also more likely to work flat-out against it. I think it cuts against law enforcement interests and contributes to a cadre of unprofessionals that would subvert intelligence gathering. It certainly represents an out-dated approach to security/privacy. ("The Pillar Of Salt") I think today's agencies would be receptive to anything that would improve reporting, assist them in investigations, or "partner" them with corporate/private interests. I would think some creative legislation could be drafted so as to work to the advantage of all interests. The "evil" isn't the inanimate object. ("Voodoo.") For private security professionals to be in conflict with their public cohorts is a sign of irrationality. Certain technological-cultural changes were just not anticipated. I don't see why you can't get a working group together with the relative agencies to examine contemporary problems and propose creative solutions in surveillance/counterespionage. It would assist them in perceiving and adapting to change and threats, grease information flows, and even improve their public image. Agencies should look toward protecting and enabling the private sector, or their agendas will suffer. As surveillance becomes more pervasive, sensitization is likely to lead to a flashback that works against their interests. ~Aimee 4873 From: James M. Atkinson Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 8:48pm Subject: RE: Felons on this list? ALL READ I hate to be the guy holding the rolled up newspaper but... Both the statute and case law that apply to the possession, use, sale, and such of eavesdropping devices is actually quite clear and easy to understand. There is no latitude, no excuses, no alibi's, no "get out of jail free" cards, and no way to tap dance around the issue. Simply put; members of the public can not play with the stuff, nor can they twist definitions to justify their misdeeds. Also, LEO's can only use it after being specifically authorized by the courts, and at no other times. If you have a "test transmitter" the bloody thing had better say "Hewlett Packard" or at least be a device with an FCC ID number, not be even remotely useful for covert eavesdropping (and not one thing that could even slightly raise the eyebrow of any Grand Jury member). Hint: If you have to EXPLAIN to someone "why it's not a bug", then your already screwed. -jma At 7:24 PM -0600 2/25/02, Aimee Farr wrote: > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Uhrig [mailto:steve@s...] >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:11 PM >> To: TSCM-L@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: [TSCM-L] Felons on this list? ALL READ >> > >After reading Steve's post, I feel like a puppy that wet the carpet, and I >didn't do anything bad. > >Time has passed this law by. It is no longer consistent with the range of >devices available, the advertising, or public awareness. It was written for >law enforcement, with private interests as an afterthought in the >congressional record. > >As it stands, the charlatans are likely to act in confidence (not that this >isn't a security virtue) -- but they are also less likely to act in, or >advocate, the public interest. They are also more likely to work flat-out >against it. I think it cuts against law enforcement interests and >contributes to a cadre of unprofessionals that would subvert intelligence >gathering. It certainly represents an out-dated approach to >security/privacy. ("The Pillar Of Salt") > >I think today's agencies would be receptive to anything that would improve >reporting, assist them in investigations, or "partner" them with >corporate/private interests. I would think some creative legislation could >be drafted so as to work to the advantage of all interests. The "evil" isn't >the inanimate object. ("Voodoo.") > >For private security professionals to be in conflict with their public >cohorts is a sign of irrationality. Certain technological-cultural changes >were just not anticipated. > >I don't see why you can't get a working group together with the relative >agencies to examine contemporary problems and propose creative solutions in >surveillance/counterespionage. It would assist them in perceiving and >adapting to change and threats, grease information flows, and even improve >their public image. > >Agencies should look toward protecting and enabling the private sector, or >their agendas will suffer. As surveillance becomes more pervasive, >sensitization is likely to lead to a flashback that works against their >interests. > >~Aimee > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Bug Sweep, Spy Hunting, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James M. AtkinsonPhone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island GroupFax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008mailto:jmatk@t... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt,1910 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4874 From: Aimee Farr Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:48pm Subject: RE: Felons on this list? ALL READ jma: > I hate to be the guy holding the rolled up newspaper but... :) I wasn't expressing disagreement with the gist of Steve's post, or the BLACK-LETTER LAW -- just my disagreement with what is an ineffective regulatory scheme, and one that is starting to negatively effect the very interests it was crafted to protect. "Bad law" arguments carry no weight in court, and I didn't suggest that it did. My argument was for a revisitation of this statute with regard to private sector interests and for public-private collaboration to address the real problems. We have failed to do that in espionage, and it's time for congress to take revisit this problem with meaningful analysis, rather than simply knee-jerk prohibitive statutes. (i.e., let's put some enablement and $ behind these statutes.) Steve's post was so long and detailed - I gather I should have cut and pasted. ~Aimee 4875 From: Steve Uhrig Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:12pm Subject: RE: Felons on this list? ALL READ Once upon a midnight dreary, the lovely and talented Miss Aimee Farr Esq. pondered, weak and weary: > I wasn't expressing disagreement with the gist of Steve's post, or the > BLACK-LETTER LAW -- just my disagreement with what is an ineffective > regulatory scheme, and one that is starting to negatively effect the very > interests it was crafted to protect. It was designed to keep electronic surveillance out of the hands of the unwashed masses. It was written, and is enforced, to do that very effectively. Appropriate provisions are made for legitimate users or possesors of electronic surveillance, and I detailed those, and anyone can read them in the original cite of the statute. What's the problem? Keep the stuff out of the hands of bozos, and specifically detail acceptable uses of the stuff? Seems to do that quite effectively. > "Bad law" arguments carry no weight in court, and I didn't suggest > that it did. Void for vagueness certainly is in place, as are any laws which conflict with the Constitution (for example, the 5th Amendment says more than you think it does. "No law shall be passed imparing the obligation on contracts'. NO LAW. If I have a contract with you to haul Bibles to Iowa, NO LAW, state, federal, motor vehicle or anything, legally can be applied which impairs that contractural obligation. If I choose to make the trip with no state-issued drivers' license, no vehicle registration, etc. no power on Earth legally can stop me. And any law which conflicts with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is null and void. Or jury nullification, if you want to open that bag of worms. But that's another story. > My argument was for a revisitation of this statute with regard to private > sector interests and for public-private collaboration to address the real > problems. The law provides perfectly for real problems in the private sector. Use the stuff, possess it, advertise it, go to jail on a felony rap, unless you are a government agency operating under a court order or a communications infrastructure provider, or a registered legitimate manufacturer of the things, for authorized users only. What needs to be revisited? Do you want to loosen the restrictions so more people other than government can buy and use electronic surveillance against others? The real problems are not enough enforecment of the existing law. > We have failed to do that in espionage, and it's time for congress to > take revisit this problem with meaningful analysis, rather than simply > knee-jerk prohibitive statutes. (i.e., let's put some enablement and $ > behind these statutes.) We don't need any knee jerk prohibitions. We already have them. ANYONE OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT USING THE CRAP IS COMMITTING A FELONY! What more needs to be said? If any exception was made whatsoever for the public to use this stuff, it would be for video from the lovely Aimee's boudoir (sp?) !! Steve ******************************************************************* Steve Uhrig, SWS Security, Maryland (USA) Mfrs of electronic surveillance equip mailto:Steve@s... website http://www.swssec.com tel +1+410-879-4035, fax +1+410-836-1190 "In God we trust, all others we monitor" ******************************************************************* 4876 From: Aimee Farr Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 11:14pm Subject: RE: RE: Felons on this list? ALL READ Steve.... > Once upon a midnight dreary, the lovely and talented Miss Aimee Farr Esq. > pondered, weak and weary: > > > I wasn't expressing disagreement with the gist of Steve's post, or the > > BLACK-LETTER LAW -- just my disagreement with what is an ineffective > > regulatory scheme, and one that is starting to negatively > effect the very > > interests it was crafted to protect. > > It was designed to keep electronic surveillance out of the hands of the > unwashed masses. It was written, and is enforced, to do that very > effectively. Okay, let me try to say this, so I am not misunderstood....gimme a break, my mind has been on something else all day, and it's fuzzy. 1. Money talks, words walk. 2. I can make many arguments for how this statute could be improved. In some places, it does cut against everybody's interests. In my opinion, and in the opinion of leading legal scholars on this damn statute. It's screwy! 3. "First, you must establish a relationship with the person in charge, whom I will refer to as the client. This has to be closely akin to a doctor-patient or attorney-client relationship. This person must trust you implicitly...." -Robert W. Doms, Sr., LTC AUS, Ret., _Practical Countermeasures For Law Enforcement_ 7 (2000). I found the above quote briefing the viability of a "protective function privilege" (via statute) for private counterespionage practitioners, which might address some of the misprision of felony issues. (Fat chance.) I would argue that you are a *fiduciary* professional, and you shouldn't have to babysit a stupid gadget. If you carry the indicia of a professionalism, I have no problem trusting you to deliver the "evil" to law enforcement. You have been engaged as a private solutionist. Heaven forbid you should study the evil! *gasp!* I think that should be legal. YOU'RE the GOOD GUY. The "thing" isn't THE CRIMINAL -- and if you want one, you're perfectly capable of building it. It is an invisible crime, that's low fear of apprehension. I want to figure out a way to empower the legit professionals. Also, an independent confidentiality statute allowing for sanitized reports or "turn-ins" through a third-party certification organization might offer law enforcement some additional insight into a "quiet problem," and offer you protected disclosure. I have no idea...but I don't think there is anything wrong with asking dumb questions. We are currently taking similar measures to protect private cybersecurity data from FOIA requests to grease public-private information flows. Bundled together, such a scheme might better balance competing needs, encourage open reporting, serve as a vehicle for awareness, etc. I'm talking about legitimizing illegal surveillance, or making it easier on the bad guys. I would make it harder for them. > Appropriate provisions are made for legitimate users or possesors of > electronic surveillance, and I detailed those, and anyone can read them > in the original cite of the statute. I disagree. There should be an exception for qualified research. Limited or licensed, whatever. > What's the problem? Keep the stuff out of the hands of bozos, and > specifically detail acceptable uses of the stuff? Steve, I'm not in the mood do a legal brief right now, maybe later. Prohibitions are just not enough, and the statute has failed to address some important areas, IMO. > Seems to do that quite effectively. Not from here. > > "Bad law" arguments carry no weight in court, and I didn't suggest > > that it did. > > > My argument was for a revisitation of this statute with regard > to private > > sector interests and for public-private collaboration to > address the real > > problems. > > The law provides perfectly for real problems in the private sector. > > Use the stuff, possess it, advertise it, go to jail on a felony rap, > unless you are a government agency operating under a court order or a > communications infrastructure provider, or a registered legitimate > manufacturer of the things, for authorized users only. > > What needs to be revisited? Espionage, sabotage, sedition and subversion. Congressional history suggests they are often "bundled" together. What about the failure to report an abstraction of national defense information -- a broad judicial definition. In light of our "connectivity" maybe that needs to be broader. Who is monitoring these things and correlating them? Yes, I know...but they don't have enough resources, networks, or money. > Do you want to loosen the restrictions so more people other than > government can buy and use electronic surveillance against others? Heck no. > The real problems are not enough enforecment of the existing law. And.... -- not enough awareness, information, collaboration and education. That requires money. > > We have failed to do that in espionage, and it's time for congress to > > take revisit this problem with meaningful analysis, rather than simply > > knee-jerk prohibitive statutes. (i.e., let's put some enablement and $ > > behind these statutes.) > > We don't need any knee jerk prohibitions. We already have them. :) > ANYONE OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT USING THE CRAP IS COMMITTING A FELONY! > > What more needs to be said? Whenever you want money, you have to say something. And, the private sector half of Title III has been neglected. The statute wasn't written to protect privacy, that was a compromise measure. That's clearly in the congressional record. > If any exception was made whatsoever for the public to use this stuff, it > would be for video from the lovely Aimee's boudoir (sp?) !! I'm NOT talking about public exceptions!!!!!!!! (Go rest for surgery, my thoughts are with you.) ~Aimee 4877 From: Aimee Farr Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 11:20pm Subject: RE: RE: Felons on this list? ALL READ > I'm talking about legitimizing illegal surveillance, or making it > easier on > the bad guys. I would make it harder for them. Should have read: I'm NOT talking about... The caselaw behind this statute is really kinked in places in the private sector. I've got states wandering all over the place in the private sector issues -- by statute and court limb-stretching. Uniformity would provide guidance. ~Aimee> 4878 From: tek492p Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 0:31am Subject: Re: What are decibels and what do they mean to me? --- In TSCM-L@y..., "john schmitt" wrote: > > Dear Steve, > I'd venture that your lesson > about how 13 db is 20x is lost on most people who don't have the basis > concepts. > Simple: 0 dBm is referenced to 1 milliwatt. Therefore... +10 dBm is 10 milliwatts. (+10 dBm equals 10 times the power). +13 dBm is 20 milliwatts. (+3 dBm equals 2 times the power). Jack Lindauer Intertect TSCM services Los Angeles (818) 831-0515 4879 From: tek492p Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:39am Subject: Re: Felons on this list? ALL READ --- In TSCM-L@y..., "Steve Uhrig" wrote: > > From: "tek492p" > > Your only safe course of action right now is to surrender the things to > your local law enforcement agency on your own terms, advising them you > just learned your possession of them was illegal and you are surrendering > them in accordance with the law. Ah....... Please read my original post again. These are MOTION PICTURE WIRELESS MICROPHONES, I repeat, MOTION PICTURE WIRELESS MICROPHONES, that are placed on the actors when the camera is on a wide shot. I own these MOTION PICTURE WIRELESS MICROPHONES, because at one time I worked in the motion picture industry as a Production Sound Mixer. Oh, and by the way, I live in Los Angeles, which is the motion picture capital of the world. There are also hundreds of other Productions Sound Mixers as well as dozens of sound equipment rental houses that have these microphones. Perhaps the ENTIRE motion picture and television industry should all surrender their WIRELESS MICROPHONES or we can just wait for the Federal government and local law enforcement agencies to raid all the motion picture and television studios. > Since the other transmitters you mentioned are not on amateur > frequencies, the ones in your above paragraph likely are not either. > You are correct. They are NOT on amateur radio frequencies, they ARE on FCC APPROVED, I repeat, FCC APPROVED WIRELESS MICROPHONE FREQUENCIES. These frequencies are allocated to the motion picture and television industry for wireless microphones. Here are the frequencies of my WIRELESS MICROPHONES: Four wireless microphones (for the actors); 169 - 170 Mhz. One wireless microphone (for the director's headphones); 72.1 Mhz. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my original post about the frequencies. I was just trying to indicate that I used various transmitters at both VHF & UHF frequencies. The actual range of frequencies is 50 MHz to 450 MHz. The wireless microphones mentioned above, plus a few amateur radio transmitters. Next time. Please don't jump to conclusions. If you would have asked first about the "transmitters" and "frequencies", I could have told you that they were simply just motion picture wireless microphones. I would be very happy to demonstrate my MOTION PICTURE WIRELESS MICROPHONES to any agent of any law enforcement agency, along with a few "war stories" of some of the films I worked on. Jack Lindauer Intertect TSCM services Los Angeles (818) 831-0515 4880 From: Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:18pm Subject: Re: Re: Felons on this list? ALL READ In a message dated 2/25/02 11:40:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, tek492p@y... writes: << Perhaps I should have been more specific in my original post about the frequencies. I was just trying to indicate that I used various transmitters at both VHF & UHF frequencies. The actual range of frequencies is 50 MHz to 450 MHz. The wireless microphones mentioned above, plus a few amateur radio transmitters. Next time. Please don't jump to conclusions. If you would have asked first about the "transmitters" and "frequencies", I could have told you that they were simply just motion picture wireless microphones. >> FROM ORIGINAL POST In a message dated 2/24/02 5:10:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, tek492p@y... writes: << I am also an amateur (ham) radio operator, and have about a dozen, or more, various transmitters ranging in frequency from 40 MHz to 500 Mhz, with power levels from 10 mW to 100 mW. Some I bought, some I built myself from scratch, some are audio modulated, others are just "oscillators". >> Seems like you have quite a collection of transmitters. 4881 From: David Alexander Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:50am Subject: questionable Zimbabwe surveillance film Has anybody seen this news item about surveillance footage that allegedly shows the leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe discussing the 'elimination' of the president ? The footage is grainy and appears to be heavily edited and out of sequence and supposedly filmed by an ex Mossad agent http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1841000/1841846.stm regards _______________________________ David Alexander M.INSTIS Global Infrastructure Director Bookham Technology plc Tel: +44 (0) 1327 356264 Mobile: +44 (0) 7799 881284 Fax: +44 (0) 1327 356775 http://www.bookham.com ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. ======================================================================= Any questions about Bookham's E-Mail service should be directed to postmaster@b.... 4882 From: DrPepper Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:53am Subject: Re: Felons on this list? ALL READ Steve, , , Just from reading this snippet, I don't see where he admits to violating any law. He is merely saying that he has some transmitters on these various frequencies. I also have a few transmitters in this freq range, but I also have some that go down to 160 meters, as well. What law is he violating? -- Dr Pepper aka WB6GKI in the High Desert of California. Check out my LIVE Hamshack Cam at: http://www1.iwvisp.com/DrPepper/ham/ham.htm ============================================ Steve Uhrig wrote: > > From: "tek492p" > > > I am also an amateur (ham) radio operator, and have about a dozen, or > > more, various transmitters ranging in frequency from 40 MHz to 500 > > Mhz, with power levels from 10 mW to 100 mW. Some I bought, some I > > built myself from scratch, some are audio modulated, others are just > > "oscillators". > > Jack, you have just confessed in a public forum widely read by law > enforcement, to committing a number of state and federal felonies. 4883 From: Ray Van Staden Date: Mon Feb 26, 2001 11:31am Subject: Re: questionable Zimbabwe surveillance film David I have seen the alleged footage. It has been edited beyond belief, the picture & sound quality is poor to say the least. In today's day & age, & being an ex-Mossad agent, having this so called "world class consultancy" , & to go produce such a poor quality production, speaks volumes in its self. For it to be released so close to the elections in Zimbabwe is very suspicious. This "ex-Mossad: agent has a very dubious past going back to Oliver North & Contra Affair in the United States, where he was exposed as being fraud by either TIME or NEWSWEEK (possible even both). Surprise Surprise the man also happens to be have even been a consultant to Mugabe for the last 15 years. Why would Morgan Tsvangiri go to a political consultancy firm in Canada to have Mugabe bumped off? The elections should be interesting should Tsvangirai win the election, Mugabe is likely to use the military and the police to reject the electoral result and maintain his rule by force. If this happens, widespread civil unrest may ensue. It is, of course, also possible that Mugabe might decide not to take the chance of losing the election by calling a state of emergency. If ZANU-PF can instigate enough violence, and can solicit some kind of violent response from the MDC, this would enable Mugabe to argue that free and fair elections will not be possible and that it was in the "interest of democracy" to postpone such elections. Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Alexander" To: "'TSCM submissions'" Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:50 PM Subject: [TSCM-L] questionable Zimbabwe surveillance film > > Has anybody seen this news item about surveillance footage that allegedly > shows the leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe discussing the 'elimination' > of the president ? > > The footage is grainy and appears to be heavily edited and out of sequence > and supposedly filmed by an ex Mossad agent > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1841000/1841846.stm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 4884 From: Michael Puchol Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 0:02pm Subject: Re: Felons on this list? ALL READ Hi, First of all, let me say that Steve's piece was very well put, but there are a few minor details that I want to point out. I believe that the mere possession of a transmitter does not constitute an illegal act (OK, depending on the type of transmitter, you may need a license to own it in some places), I personally have about 85 transmitters in the 400-470MHz band in storage.......they are Kenwood PMR transceivers for an AVL system we're installing next month - that doesn't mean I'm doing anything illegal. So, the mere mention of a 'transmitter' shouldn't raise eyebrows and comments all over - let's be more specific, let's talk about 'bugs' or 'taps' or 'transceivers' (or other specific terms). This way we won't get all heated up over nothing. If the guy admitted to possessing a 'bug' then Steve's post is more than deserved, as is punishment as provided by current laws - but, to have a few transmitters in public, license-exempt bands for testing your equipment is something I personally don't find inmoral or wrong - I use devices like the Kenwood UBZ (license free 433MHz band transceiver, 50mW, I believe in the US it goes in the FRS band), CB radios, HF transmitter boards (huge ones, could hardly be used as 'bugs', apart they cannot carry audio other than a test tone), DECT telephones (for wideband), WiFi cards (for 2.4GHz spread spectrum), etc.... What it comes down to, also mentioning a post by James a while ago, is that you don't need -real- bugs to get training, practice or become proficient with your equipment, you can do it with many devices that are perfectly legal to use. If you need to conceal something small to simulate a bug for a physical inspection, then use the playing chips or other inert material. Make your test transmitters big, and label them as such - I have one of these UBZ/FRS rigs inside an orange peli case, with a lead battery and a small microcontroller I can program to TX, change channels etc. for various purposes, like simulating a burst TX or channel hopper. Regarding the not-so-good relationship between TSCMers and law enforcement, I think it's a question of awareness - I have really good friends in the police forces, and find that sometimes they come ask me about stuff - like a GPS a thieve lost the other day inside a house he broke into - they called me to see what could be extracted from it, and voilĂ , a waypoint marked 'Home' - yes, it was the burglar's home, he apparently used the GPS to 'mark' succulent houses. Anyway, I'm wondering off-topic now - you have to try to show L.E. that you're not a juju man that comes with all those blinking boxes, cables & antennas, finds the bug, and leaves them to do the cleaning up. Lack of knowledge (of what the other is doing) leads to lack of trust, which leads to bad feelings. Just my €0.02 worth, all the best, Mike > Steve Uhrig wrote: > > > > From: "tek492p" > > > > > I am also an amateur (ham) radio operator, and have about a dozen, or > > > more, various transmitters ranging in frequency from 40 MHz to 500 > > > Mhz, with power levels from 10 mW to 100 mW. Some I bought, some I > > > built myself from scratch, some are audio modulated, others are just > > > "oscillators". > > > > Jack, you have just confessed in a public forum widely read by law > > enforcement, to committing a number of state and federal felonies. > 4885 From: Aimee Farr Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 5:31pm Subject: RE: questionable Zimbabwe surveillance film Staden: > This "ex-Mossad: agent has a very dubious past going back to > Oliver North & Contra Affair in the United States, All pasts are "dubious," and accordingly, everything goes to the Contra Affair -- eventually. I just thought it was like a "family tree" ... or maybe "roots" when you need to dye your hair again. Everybody has it, but it's not polite to mention. TV has trained the public to trust surveillance footage. Truth can actually can have little to do with what carries, and attacking the veracity of it can have little effect (see "Emotional Selection" hyperlink below, along with misc. references). The more you discredit it, the more people look, and are emotionally impacted, and the more people emotionally credit it. > It has been edited beyond belief, the picture & sound quality is > poor to say the least. "Seeds of untruth" if properly packaged, nets more commentary and pass-along. This conflicts a little bit with traditional notions of say, radio propaganda. "For example, if memes are selected for their emotional content [rather than informational content], then social systems may sometimes experience emotional snowballing –runaway selection for emotional content rather than for information." -- Emotional Selection. (See, also "terrorism," "cyberterrorism," and other "framing" strategies of "Homeland Defense.") "Certain memes also operate to undermine public faith in governmental or social institutions." -- Id. I look for "noncombatant footage" to discredit military initiatives, political payloads via an email virus, domestic agit-prop, anti-intelligence, etc. Surveillance will probably increasingly feed propaganda efforts, as surveillance is media. Ditto for the private sector. At least the Pentagon is not about to engage in anything resembling an information deception operation. You see, lying threatens the credibility of the D.C. leaking establishment, and their power to covertly influence American policy through the media -- without guidelines, or accountability to....anybody. Only in D.C. can that sort of pot-kettle irony masquerade as a moral position in warfare. ~Aimee Misc. Refs -- they wander, I don't pretend to have read every one, ignore my abbreviations: ----------- O/SI-D/Heath, et. Al./Emotional Selection In Memes: The Case of the Urban Legend @ http:http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/press_releases/december_2001/psp8161028 .html (good primary cites) S/SI-D/Dewar/The Art of Deception in Warfare IW/S/MH-IWPElliott-Bateman/The Fourth Dimension of Warfare, Volume I Intelligence, Subversion, Resistance T/SI-D/Thomas/Int'l Conflict Controllers @ http://call.army.mil/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/manipult.htm O/SI-D/Kam/Surprise Attacks: The Victim's Perspective O/SI-D/Blum/Deceivers and Deceived: Observations on Confidence Men and Their Victims, Informants and Their Quarry, Political and Individual Spies and Ordinary Citizens O/SI-D/Whaley/Cheating and Deception O/SI-D/Charters & Tugwell/Deception Operations: Studies in an East-West Context O/CA-P/Hulnick/Dirty Tricks For Profit: Covert Action In Private Industry (International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 14: 529-544, 2001) Modern Conflict Theorists - Convergence/S/MCT-C/Wilson, Michael/Toward An Ontology of Integrated Intelligence & Conflict @ http:www.metatempo.com T/SI-P/Ellul, Jacques/Propaganda: The Formation Of Men's Attitudes O/SI-P/Soley/Radio Warfare S/SI-P/Salminen/The Silenced Media: The Propaganda War Between Russia and the West... S/SI-P/Bernays/Propaganda T/SI-P/Kirkpatric/Soviet Political Warfare Techniques T/SI-P/Manheim/Death of a Thousand Cuts: Origins, Strategy and Tactics of the Attack on the Corporation S/SI/Cialdini/Influence: Science and Practice S/PS/Pitney/The Art of Political Warfare 4886 From: Justin T. Fanning Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 5:39pm Subject: AN IDIOT'S IDIOT Police in Radnor, Pennsylvania, interrogated a suspect by placing a metal colander on his head and connecting it with wires to a photocopy machine. The message "He's lying" was placed in the copier, and police pressed the copy button each time they thought the suspect wasn't telling the truth. Believing the "lie detector" was working, the suspect confessed. 4887 From: Steve Uhrig Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:20pm Subject: RE: Felons on this list? ALL READ Once upon a midnight dreary, Aimee Farr pondered, weak and weary: > I wasn't expressing disagreement with the gist of Steve's post, or the > BLACK-LETTER LAW -- just my disagreement with what is an ineffective > regulatory scheme, and one that is starting to negatively effect the > very interests it was crafted to protect. Not many would agree those protected by the statute are negatively affected. Some doddering old lunatics who pretend to be involved in the profession might, but that is only to gather support for their attempted heroics, saving law enforcement from themselves, coupled with a significant amount of greed and envy. No names will be mentioned out of courtesy to the gentleman suffering from dementia for the last 25 years. > 1. Money talks, words walk. Irrelevant, to those of us living on the same planet. > 2. I can make many arguments for how this statute could be improved. In > some places, it does cut against everybody's interests. In my opinion, and > in the opinion of leading legal scholars on this damn statute. It's > screwy! If legal scholars are so damn knowledgeable, why is this country in such a miserable mess? Legal scholars can think anything they want. They aren't involved in the profession. Lots of people disagree with me on points of law. Lots of them are even lawyers. ALL walk away educated after my testimony, and with just the ever so slightest hint of humility. > 3. "First, you must establish a relationship with the person in charge, > whom I will refer to as the client. This has to be closely akin to a > doctor-patient or attorney-client relationship. This person must trust you > implicitly...." -Robert W. Doms, Sr., LTC AUS, Ret., _Practical > Countermeasures For Law Enforcement_ 7 (2000). Bob Doms is a knowledgeman, and a good friend. But what does this have to do with anything regarding the public's ILLEGAL possession of transmitters. Bob Doms did not write that booklet for the public. He wrote it for other law enforcement officers. He's talking people on the other side of the fence from where we are sitting. > I found the above quote briefing the viability of a "protective function > privilege" (via statute) for private counterespionage practitioners, which > might address some of the misprision of felony issues. (Fat chance.) We don't speak. Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. Above was an example. (If Aimee was from any planet other than Earth, it would be Venus however). > I would argue that you are a *fiduciary* professional, and you > shouldn't have to babysit a stupid gadget. If you carry the indicia of > a professionalism, I have no problem trusting you to deliver the > "evil" to law enforcement. Then you are a proponent of destroying the legal chain of custody, and ruining any chance of prosecution? SWEEPERS ARE LAYMEN! Only in the most unusual of instances are they commissioned law enforcement officers, and this discussion excludes them. Sweepers have NO LEGAL GROUND to claim the status of 'fiduciary' professional. No provisions for that in the law. The law is fine the way it is. Sweepers, with only the rarest exceptions described above, are laymen. They are the public. Break the legal chain of custody by placing physical evidence of a felony in the hands of a layman, and no prosecutor will touch it. Or is that an ulterior motive you are seeking? How would any sweeper you know of, from this list or anywhere else in the galaxy, be considered a 'fiduciary' professional? What standards would be applied? What certifications? What licensing? What training? BECCA fell flat on its face, twice under two separate leaders, trying to establish this. ERI is nothing more than a former unsuccessful BECCA under a different moniker. Under what standards or authority would you confer the aegis of 'fiduciary professional' regarding ANY sweeper you have met thus far? Even me? !!! > You have been engaged as a private solutionist. Heaven forbid you > should study the evil! *gasp!* I think that should be legal. I want to study the effects of machine gun fire impacting on Texas female attorneys. Should I be allowed to have a machine gun? I want to study the effects of gamma rays on man in the moon marigolds. Should I be allowed to have marigolds? Gamma rays? Point being, for these other studies, there are certifications, licensing, formal training requirements, etc. to separate the men from the boys. There aren't in the TSCM business. So, legally, we're all boys. A bunch of people have tried to start organizations to develop criteria and bestow certifications. These have been unofficial from a government point of view, and every single one, without exception, has become riddled with corruption, fiscal improprieties, driven only by the oppressive and smothering ego of the person at the helm (all of whom, incidentally, have been retired longer than most of us have been in business or even alive in some cases). No TSCMer on the planet has any more *official* claim to fame than any other. Some may look up to others, others may usurp authority in various organizations, some may pitch an endless line of porcine feces. But there is no officially sanctioned organization who can say 'members of our organization, or members certified by our organization' are 'CERTIFIED' TSCM practitioners. Yeah, you can buy certificates from several of these groups to whom I have been referring, and I mean buy. Point being, NO TSCMer has any legal standing to possess electronic surveillance devices nor to take them into custody, merely by virtue of being involved in TSCM to some degree. Youse guys come down on others for UPL. We have to compete with them. > YOU'RE the GOOD GUY. The "thing" isn't THE CRIMINAL -- and if you want > one, you're perfectly capable of building it. It is an invisible crime, > that's low fear of apprehension. I want to figure out a way to empower the > legit professionals. I'm perfectly capable of building a machine gun, or synthesizing crystal meth. I do build surveillance devices, within complete compliance with the law. I even could build a feisty female Texas attorney if I had a free weekend, but I'm not sure what I'd do with her. There are no legit professionals to empower. There is no mechanism for conferring the hallowed status of legit professional on someone, short of that someone joining a public law enforcement agency or established (meaning able to show an ongoing history of supply to government on paper, not in their wet dreams) manufacturer of electronic surveillance devices. That is the problem. If you asked on this list, 99% would consider themselves legit professionals. Ask me, might possibly be as high as 3% - 5%. Maybe. And that counts the police officers I know who monitor this list. The owner of this list, Jim Atkinson, and the writer and operator of the largest TSCM website in the world, is not a legit professional authorized to possess electronic surveillance. If he locates a device on a job, I can promise you he won't touch it; he will remain on the scene until duly constituted authorities arrive to take custody of the device. I don't even have to ask him. I know that is how he would handle it. How would you separate a voyeur or someone up to no good, from someone who signs up on this list, learns a few buzzwords, then starts lying about how many bugs they've found (and I've just described a significant portion of this list)? Appropriate provisions are made for legitimate users or possesors of electronic surveillance, and I detailed those, and anyone can read them in the original cite. > I disagree. There should be an exception for qualified research. > Limited or licensed, whatever. There is. Simply get a government contract to supply devices or even services, even if for destructive test, or evaluation, or assault and flattery, and you're completely in the clear legally. That's precisely what I did, and last month was 30 years I've been doing it. I'll quit here. I have to leave for Seattle in the AM. Amongst other things, gonna meet with a bunch of high powered attorneys and advise them how to handle their client's affairs where surveillance may be involved. Steve ******************************************************************* Steve Uhrig, SWS Security, Maryland (USA) Mfrs of electronic surveillance equip mailto:Steve@s... website http://www.swssec.com tel +1+410-879-4035, fax +1+410-836-1190 "In God we trust, all others we monitor" ******************************************************************* 4888 From: john schmitt Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 1:11am Subject: Re: Re: What are decibels and what do they mean to me? Excuse me, Mr. Lindauer, but I fail to see how your lesson, either, provides much in the way of help for someone who does not have the basic concepts, as you say: ******* Simple: 0 dBm is referenced to 1 milliwatt. Therefore... +10 dBm is 10 milliwatts. (+10 dBm equals 10 times the power). +13 dBm is 20 milliwatts. (+3 dBm equals 2 times the power). ************* Why are these things true? Well, it turns out, they're only approximately true. First of all, the reference to 1 milliwatt is irrelevant. Decibels of sound pressure are referenced to .0002 dynes/cm^2, or .0002 microbar, or 2 micropascals, but they are decibels nonetheless. The "deci" refers to a multiplication of 10 of an exponential power. As in 10 dB is really 1, which means one more power of 10. As in 3 dB is really .3 power of 10. It happens that 10 to the .3 power is 1.995262315, which is close enough to 2 for government work. This is the reason that 13 dB is about 20x, 10x for the 10 (1 power of 10) and 2x for the 3 (0.3 power of 10. -- John Schmitt ----- Original Message ----- From: "tek492p" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:31 AM Subject: [TSCM-L] Re: What are decibels and what do they mean to me? > --- In TSCM-L@y..., "john schmitt" wrote: > > > > Dear Steve, > > > I'd venture that your lesson > > about how 13 db is 20x is lost on most people who don't have the > basis > > concepts. > > > > > Simple: > > 0 dBm is referenced to 1 milliwatt. Therefore... > > +10 dBm is 10 milliwatts. (+10 dBm equals 10 times the power). > > +13 dBm is 20 milliwatts. (+3 dBm equals 2 times the power). > > Jack Lindauer > Intertect > TSCM services > Los Angeles > (818) 831-0515 > > > > > ======================================================== > TSCM-L Technical Security Mailing List > "In a multitude of counselors there is strength" > > To subscribe to the TSCM-L mailing list visit: > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/TSCM-L > > It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. > It is by the juice of Star Bucks that thoughts acquire speed, > the hands acquire shaking, the shaking is a warning. > It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. > =================================================== TSKS > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > 4889 From: Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:11am Subject: Rants and flames >>Steve Uhrig stated: "Once upon a midnight dreary, the lovely and talented Miss Aimee Farr Esq. pondered, weak and weary" Do the rules of this forum permit such childish flames? >>Steve Uhrig stated: "ANYONE OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT USING THE CRAP IS COMMITTING A FELONY!" And I suppose that since Steve is approved as a Govt. vendor/contractor/supplier he is protecting his turf by not wanting anyone else to have the legal right to experiment, design, sell, etc... >>Steve Uhrig stated: "If any exception was made whatsoever for the public to use this stuff, it >>would be for video from the lovely Aimee's boudoir (sp?) !!" Do the rules of this forum permit sexual harassing rants? Karl V. Prentner, CPA/CITP, CISA Corporate Audit and Security Services 770-563-4048 Public key = http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x177C7121 If you are not the addressee indicated in this message you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. Please destroy this message and notify me by reply email. Let me know by reply email if you or your employer do not want or allow messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm are mine and mine alone. 4890 From: Steve Uhrig Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:04pm Subject: Re: Rants and flames Once upon a midnight dreary, karl.prentner@w... pondered, weak and weary: Haven't you ever seen standard reply headers which reflect the personality or sense of humor of the person sending the email? Pardon, The most esteemed karl.prentner@w... condescended to post to this list: > And I suppose that since Steve is approved as a Govt. > vendor/contractor/supplier he is protecting his turf by not wanting > anyone else to have the legal right to experiment, design, sell, > etc... I welcome contact with other *legitimate* manufacturers in my profession. We get together regularly to compare notes. It's not an adversarial thing. We help each other set up and demo our respective goodies when we're meeting the same client. Many of us sub work out to each other. I referred several government callers today to other manufacturers with more appropriate products for their needs than ours. I'm all for anyone who operates within the law. The entire conversation was about those who don't, but since it took longer to read the whole thread than to watch an episode of "Roseanne', few probably bothered to follow the thread. > Do the rules of this forum permit sexual harassing rants? It's a matter of perception. Most of us, and I lead the pack, are quite fond of and highly respect Aimee, her intellect, her wit, her education, her courage to speak out where an issue merits discussion. She's read a *lot* of classic literature, as I know from private email. I frankly doubt she takes it as sexual harassment, and if she did, you can be sure she would let me know, off list incidentally, in no uncertain terms. She knows I think a lot of her. Friends can banter back and forth like this. Sorry you can't. Do you perceive me to be sexually harassing you? Look back on the archives of this list to the day it started, count the numbers of posts of a technical nature, see where I fall in the standings. Where do you fall? I'll go you one further. Subtract ten times the number of 'let your hair down after an extremely stressful day' posts I've made from the number of technical posts I've made, and see where the numbers still fall. So far, as I recall, you're 0 for 1. > Karl V. Prentner, CPA/CITP, CISA Corporate Audit and Security Services > Public key = > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x177C7121 > If you are not the addressee indicated in this message you may not > copy or deliver this message to anyone. Please destroy this message and > notify me by reply email. Let me know by reply email if you or your > employer do not want or allow messages of this kind. Opinions, > conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate > to the official business of my firm are mine and mine alone. > If you are not the named recipient, any review, dissemination, > distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you > received this transmission in error, please contact me immediately for > instructions." The people who add these nonsense disclaimers to their emails and faxes have overblown egos. Such prattle is a waste of bandwidth, useless and worthless. Anyone appending this kind of garbage to their emails (especially) and faxes, permanently brand themselves in my mind as someone who thinks what they have to say is a lot more important than anyone else would think it was. Yeah. You sent this email on the web. What if I happen to read it by mistake? I will instantly delete it, send you a certified letter saying I accidentally read it, cancel all my appointments and wait for your instructions on what to do, agree to make a series of appointments with a psychologist and take a series of hypnotic drugs to purge any memory of your secret squirrel critically important message from my mind, and hire a lawyer to defend me from the mayhem that certainly will come my way as a result of the legal action you will take against me because I profited from accidentally reading your misdirected fax or email. Yeah. We all know your communications are life and death critical, and nations can topple if they would fall into the wrong hands. You are important. Your communications are so vital you have to waste bandwidth and my time and storage with all these warnings and disclaimers. Get real. Sign your name, use an accepted email signature, and leave it at that. Forget all this crap you copied from someone who copied it from someone else who copied it from yet another someone else, and which none of you understand, but makes you feel warm and wet. I would lay odds Aimee is the only one on this list of >1250 who could explain the disclaimer. And maybe poke more holes in it than I can. Steve ABCD/EF, GHI, JKLM. NO, PQR. ******************************************************************* Steve Uhrig, SWS Security, Maryland (USA) Mfrs of electronic surveillance equip mailto:Steve@s... website http://www.swssec.com tel +1+410-879-4035, fax +1+410-836-1190 "In God we trust, all others we monitor" ******************************************************************* 4891 From: Thomas (Yahoo!) Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 8:38pm Subject: Question about device I saw Greetings; First time poster, so please forgive my tangents. I was walking w/ my family nearby the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and my wife spotted something odd up in the trees and asked if I saw anything like that before. What she saw was odd and here is where you'll have to forgive me for my description of this device is going to be crude... Up a tree about 35 feet in to the air was a boom microphone pointed TOWARDS the Postgraduate School. The Boom was attached to a small rectangular box (small and gray) the box was held to the tree w/ a small wire strap on top and a thin ('bout 1/4 inch wide) red band on bottom. About an hour later we came back by the same tree and to my surprise, the apparatus was missing. One of two things came to my mind, a) some type of surveillance? or b) animal sound recordings? I'm not in to animal study, but would it make sense to place some type of microphone attachment in a tree to listen/record animal migration patterns? Just a thought, anyone w/ an idea? Sorry for the lack of a better description, but alas I failed on that one. Thank you for your time. Thomas Roy Garner SETIPRIME ( http://www.setiprime.com ) 4580576 (ICQ)/thomasroygarner (Y!) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 4892 From: tek492p Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:56pm Subject: Re: Question about device I saw --- In TSCM-L@y..., "Thomas \(Yahoo!\)" wrote: > Greetings; > > > Up a tree about 35 feet in to the air was a boom microphone pointed TOWARDS > the Postgraduate School. The Boom was attached to a small rectangular box > (small and gray) the box was held to the tree w/ a small wire strap on top > and a thin ('bout 1/4 inch wide) red band on bottom. > > About an hour later we came back by the same tree and to my surprise, the > apparatus was missing. > By the description of the device, and by myself having worked in the motion picture industry as a Production Sound Mixer (yes, I am the one with the motion picture wireless microphones) the device was probably used eariler in the day for an outdoor video production. I use to "plant" microphones myself, to keep them out of the shot of the camera. The crew probably had to "wrap" (leave) the outdoor location in a hurry to shoot somewhere else, and the sound person decided to leave the microphone up in the tree and come back for it later, since it was out of reach to be stolen. These boom microphones have excellent audio quality and are very directional, therefore reducing outdoor noises to the sides and back (such as traffic noise). They are excellent for picking up the actors dialogue, but make very poor "surveillance" microphones for long distance audio pick-up. The "box" on the back of the microphone is a battery "power supply" for the microphone, since these microphones are condenser microphone and therefore require power. (+10 to +18 volts, two 9-volt batteries connected in series, and the batteries last a long time since the microphone draws very little current). I personally own four of these microphones. They are made in Germany by Sennheiser. Cost: $1,200.00 U.S. dollars EACH. Jack Lindauer Intertect TSCM services Los Angeles (818) 831-0515