General discussion


Edited out

By OnTheRopes ·
Edited out

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by JamesRL In reply to Edited out

If these laws exist, then there should be evidence of them. Number 1 sounds like an urban legend.

#2 - reason to beleive=probable cause in legal terms, and that is sufficient evidence for a warrant. Are you suggesting that LEOs are busting into suspected drug houses without a warrant? I'm not American, but watch a fair amount of American news/public affairs. Can you find more information?

I do know a little about #3, having read a book which went extensively into the subject. The book went into the use of facial recognition software and the use of the cameras to find people who had outstanding warrants.

Number 4, I know about RF emissions, its not as easy as you think and I have never heard of any LEO conducting such serveillance.

BTW I don't consider High Times to be a credible publication.


Collapse -


by BFilmFan In reply to Sites?

The Patriot Act (HR 3162) does grant law enforcement the ability to gain entry without a warrant if they reasonably believe an action as defined by the act is occurring, i.e. terrorism. There have been a number of articles on where certain law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been using this capability to inspect phone records and bank safe deposit boxes. This is noted in Section 213 and 501 of the Act, which is viewable at

RF monitoring is usually never successful without use of wiretaps as electrical devices generate far too much noise. I recall reading where some government agency reported they were safe from RF monitoring as they generated too much noise to decipher any information.

Collapse -

rf monitoring

by jdclyde In reply to Details

My further understanding was the only HOPE of this to work would be if you were by a window.

Systems clustered would also throw this for a loop? There was an article about this a few months back for companies that have high security clearance, but I can't for the life of me remember the source.

I can't usually even get a cell signal in my office and no radio startions. I would say it is safe to say that if RF can't get in, it can't get out.

The new toy I want to get is the cell phone scrambler! No signal within 30 feet I believe. How cool would that be? It would be on the whole time I am out eating!

Collapse -

and at the theatre.

by OnTheRopes In reply to rf monitoring

One of these days I'm going to toss my son-in-laws phone into the trash.

I believe you may be right about the clusters of equipment. One of the simple foils to the RF monitoring thing was interference from another PC that was simply running a screen saver.

Collapse -

and yet

by OnTheRopes In reply to Details

it's SOP for ultra secure briefing rooms and ultra secure facilities to use devices that generate and scramble RF waves. Why scramble them if they can't be read?

This may seem to be an incredible claim but seven years ago I witnessed a demonstration of PC RF monitoring while it was in the developmental stage before it was classified.
In use were highly directional antennae and state-of-the-art amplifiers and electronic filters. The range was limited to @20 ft., line of sight. The PC RF monitoring info is still floating around the Internet if you care to search it out.
One good place to stay up to date on technology is or... I guess you could check out High Times magazine. Some people seem to read it.

Collapse -

Ridicule without investigation...

by OnTheRopes In reply to Sites? the hallmark of a fool.
Not be harsh.

I'm not about to get into any "is not", "is too" argument with anyone over the validity of any statement I make. Just because someone may think an idea, publication, website or other media may or may not be true doesn't influence reality one iota.
I was a LEO. I know the considerable resources Federal Agencies make available to local police when the situation is warranted. I also have an "eyes on", "hands on" knowledge of what resources major PD's have at their disposal.

If a person doesn't assume that they already have all of the answers they may be open to learning something.

A good website to begin a search for available technology and how it's applied is Much of what I've stated is so old it's archived there and in links available there.

BTW Surreptitiously = secretly.
Entry can be gained via a 1/4" dia. hole for a fiberoptic cable and videocamera.
Not exactly "busting" in as you put it.

Collapse -

Investigation is what i ask for

by JamesRL In reply to Ridicule without investig ...

You are an anonymous poster. I've got years of experience on the internet (13) that tell me that urban legends are rampant.

I'm not assuming anything -I asked you for more information.

I'm well aware of RF as I worked in a nuclear facility on IT security. I worked with the RCMP. My brother was a LEO. My cousin is a decorated LEO.

My argument isn't with what may or may not have happened - its the legality thats at question. Are you telling me its legal to drill a hole in a wall and put in a video camera without a warrant?

You tell me not to assume anything, but you expect me to take everything you say at face value. Sorry, if you know it you can prove it.


Collapse -

Ok , so you're a not a noob

by OnTheRopes In reply to Investigation is what i a ...

You're asking me to investigate and I believe I gave you a link so that you can investigate and decide for yourself. I don't save every reference, link or "proof" of every thing I know. You don't either. I could likely give you a link to one thing or another and then you could shoot me a link back saying the total opposite.
To what end?

Not necessarily to be rude but I don't expect or care if you believe anything I say. I don't feel a pressing need to prove anything. Prove me wrong if you feel the need.

I'm not exactly new to this here dang ol' Internet thangy either and it really doesn't matter. Long before I had a computer I had the public library. I learned that you can HEAR or READ practically anything about anything.

Granted, upon re-reading my original post I can see how Item 2 could be read as though LEO's don't need a warrant. I didn't say that so settle down. DA's don't operate autonomously, LEO's even less so. Cops better need authority or we're all in deeper s#!+ than I think.

What types of evidence do you think are enough for probable cause? Is increased neighborhood traffic to a dwelling enough? Is an elevated utility bill enough? Is it enough for the neighbors to say there's suspicious activity next door? Would all of the above be enough to justify deeper, long term surveillance?

It's a known fact that LEO's often gather audio and video evidence inside private dwellings without the knowledge of the suspect. There are many well documented cases where surveillance continues for YEARS without an arrest being made due to lack of evidence.

If you worked for the RCMP, in whatever capacity, you know how thinly they're spread out. Do you think that the individual RCMP officer should have better tools to detect crime in his vast territory? What about better, more powerful weapons to defend themselves from criminal activity?

Having been a cop I can say that most cops I've ever met and/or worked with are generally decent
people. They know how to party that's a fact.

Seriously, JamesRL, I'm not anonymous. I believe my profile is right there for all to see.I've asked you at least a dozen questions for discussion counting my original post and this one. I'm rather more interested in what your response is to my questions than to my statements.

Collapse -

Lets begin from the beginning

by JamesRL In reply to Ok , so you're a not a no ...

1. It's been a part of the CIA's Charter that they can investigate up to 1,000 "random" individuals inside the US for "training purposes". This includes all types of surveillance like phone taps, room bugs, tracking devices, hidden cameras.

From Wikipedia: Further, the prohibition against domestic spying, which had always been prohibited by the CIA charter, was again to be enforced, with the FBI having sole responsibility for domestic investigation of US citizens.

I couldn't find the original charter, but it is well known and well referenced that the CIA is absolutely prohibited from spying on its own citizens on US soil. This is fundamental. This goes to credibility. If what you say is true, then every CIA training class is breaking the law - do you actually think thats the case? If you do, where is the evidence? Do I think this secret could be kept by thousands of CIA trainees over many years, especially when you may have disgruntled ex exmployees - I doubt that kind of secret could be kept. I'm suprised it took the New York times so long to find out about the NSA spying on US citizens.

2. There are laws within our US borders that allow LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) to "surreptitiously gain entry", a.k.a. perform a break-in, to a domicile to gain evidence if there is reason to believe that it may be a drug operation like a grow house.

Surreptiously does not describe getting a warrant, and presenting it. Even no "No knocks" are hardly sureptious. So how was I supposed to intepret that differently.

3. LEO's have the right, and duty, to make arrests for crimes committed in plain view of the Officer. This "plain view" can inlude the use of infrared viewers, cameras mounted on public utility poles, etc.

Absolutely, never denied it. Private citizens have the same rights of arrest for felony offenses. You should read "World without Secrets" by Richard Hunter. I have an autographed copy, I had a few minutes to talk to Richard.

4.Your home or office PC can be monitored in real-time from the RF emissions it creates without having to "tap" it. This can generate probable cause for LEO's to seek warrant for further investigation and arrest.

I agreed that the theory is there. But its practically impossible. Sure high security organizations should take extra protections, and the one that I did had special window coverings - a film that blocks a lot of RF (and UV too).

Let me clarify something, I didn't work for the RCMP, I worked for an agency that worked with the RCMP. Subtle, but not trying to claim anything untrue. I am cleared to secret.

Having LEOs gather electronic evidence in someone's house - been around since telephones were invented. As long as warrants are required I'm fine with that.

A radically increased hydro bill is enough in our juridiction - not a 10 ro 20% increase, but a 100% increase will send someone out. Grow house operators know that a high bill is suspcious so they often try to steal hydro from their neighbours. But a meter reader here knows to look around - if they see cables going back and forth, thats enough for a warrant.

Reports of suspicious activity? Depends what is reported. Would it convince a judge? DAs and LEOs have agendas, and biases, and we need a third party with understanding of the rules of evidence to have a fresh pair of eyes. Surveillance outside the home or office - thats always fine, with or without a warrant. I may not like it, but I have to accept that it may be necessary.

Have I ever been under surveillance? I don't know - how would I if someone is doing their job right. I am sure I have been investigated. I was detained once by the RCMP because I was on Parliament Hill in a restricted area. I had a pass because I had worked for a member of parliament, but there had been a student protest (peaceful, regarding tuition fees) and I was dressed as a student (this was in 1981 when casual dress in the workplace was not allowed ever). The officer (plain clothes not a Hill security guard) detained me, asked me questions, then called the member of parliament to verify. The member and I had a drink afterwards. Obviously it never showed up on my security check (also conducted by RCMP) years later.

Police officers are human - that includes some great and some not so great, some good and some bad. Any power has the potential to corrupt, and police officers have power.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here. Your first post really sounded a little paranoid. Your clarifications helped. And your point about reading or hearing anything is exactly the point. I have heard and read all kinds of claims that are patently false, on the internet, in books and newpapers - even ones with professional fact checkers. So you have to develop critical thinking, question assertions to get at the truth.


Collapse -

Thank you

by OnTheRopes In reply to Lets begin from the begin ...

1. In October, 2002, the Associated Press reported that the "CIA is increasing its presence at FBI field offices by assigning intelligence officers to domestic anti-terrorism teams," an excessively worrisome development considering the snoop and murder agency's track record over the last fifty or so years. Under Operation CHAOS and Project MERRIMAC, the CIA, according to former CIA undercover operative Verne Lyon, "infiltrated agents into domestic groups of all types and activities. It used its contacts with local police departments and their intelligence units to pick up its 'police skills' and began in earnest to pull off burglaries, illegal entries, use of explosives, criminal frame-ups, shared interrogations, and disinformation."

The "training purposes" as reported by Mr. Lyons were for training of CIA personnel.

Another reference:

Responding to enormous pressure from President Johnson to uncover the foreign links to the growing unrest of the late 1960s, the CIA opened up a new division within its Counter-Intelligence Branch. Over the next seven years, the program conducted by this special staff, known as Operation CHAOS, spied on more than 7,000 American citizens and 1,000 domestic organizations.

me again
I'll leave it to you to research Operation CHAOS, Project Merrimac and further documented evidence of CIA domestic operations.
It took me all of 15 minutes to Google much more about the CIA's domestic activities.

2. Read about the FBI's penetration of the Gotti mafia family, among others. They don't present themselves as LEO's when they place audio and video recording devices "surreptitiously".

Again, I could have worded that differently.
My pathetic excuse for my post is that
I've got a terrible cold, possibly pneumonia, that's kickin' my a$$. I should've probably waited until all of the med's have worn off before posting anything. The next time...

3. Awesome. We agree.

4.Can't happen but does. Surely they can do it better now.
Below is a partial article from 1986. Just one of many references. All spelling errors his.


by Al Muick OCT 86

Let me begin by a brief history of myself. I spent the better part of six years in Uncle Sam's Cntry Club (better known as the US Army) working in the Intelligence and Security Command (better knw as the ASA--Army Security Agency). During that time, my primary duties were Cryptology, CryptoloicIntercept, Counterintelligence, and Field First Sergeant (whatta drag!).

What I'm about to tell you comes under the heading of Cryptologic Intercept. Incidently, for tho of you in the know, I was stationed at Field Station Augsburg in West Germany (if you're not in th now, read the book, THE PUZZLE PALACE).

The interception of radiated data from computers and computer terminals is known in the world of e ASA as "TEMPEST." TEMPEST intercept may be accomplished in several ways. One, is via a mobile vanwth the commo equipment on board, two is via strategicly stationed intercept sites (Field Station Agsurg) and the third, rarely used, is relay from one site to another.

me again- He said his range was no more than 3 miles, in 1986.
Google computer rf interception
122,000 references

You said, "you have to develop critical thinking, question assertions to get at the truth."
I couldn't agree more.

Thank you for the Amazon link. Only 4 copies left and I'm getting one of them tomorrow. I wonder what advances have been made since 2002.

Related Discussions

Related Forums