<MI5-Victim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:m06102815272088@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> -= 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 sup****ting
> 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.
> 366
>
You keep going on and on about your suspicions, without ever
mentioning
why the Government would go to such expenses to harass you. Surely they
don't just do that to waste their money, or for practice purposes. So tell
us already what is it about you, which would be worth that kind of money
and
effort?
If you don't or can't tell us what it is the Government wants from you
so badly, you are obviously suffering from paranoid delusion, and should
be
ignored. Either that or a spell in the loony-bin might help.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
