Bugging device

[.]

Greetings,

Looking for ideas to bug a person in some way. I was thinking maybe put
a bugging device into their mobile telephone, so it could run of the
mobile's battery and microphone, but I don't think it would fit.

Ideally it would be quite powerful, and transmit on a frequency that is
legal.

Cheers.

--
Regards,
..

 

[John Tserkezis]

Looking for ideas to bug a person in some way. I was thinking maybe put
a bugging device into their mobile telephone, so it could run of the
mobile's battery and microphone, but I don't think it would fit.

Ideally it would be quite powerful, and transmit on a frequency that is
legal.

Legal frequency?? Suddenly feeling law-abiding now are we?

--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>

 

[Richard Freeman]

"." <asspunch@punkass.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b177636cd9569ee989a98@news-server.nsw.bigpond.net.au...

Greetings,

Looking for ideas to bug a person in some way. I was thinking maybe put
a bugging device into their mobile telephone, so it could run of the
mobile's battery and microphone, but I don't think it would fit.

Ideally it would be quite powerful, and transmit on a frequency that is
legal.

There is a certain Irony in wanting to commit an Illegal Act (bugging
someone) but still be concerned about wnating to do it on a legal frequency
.......

 

[Phil Allison]

"." <asspunch@punkass.com> wrote in message

Greetings,

Looking for ideas to bug a person in some way.

** Inflicting yourself on them, "asspunch", should do that quite nicely.




........... Phil

 

[.]

John Tserkezis wrote...

Legal frequency?? Suddenly feeling law-abiding now are we?

Is this aus.ethics or aus.electronics.

Fuck usenet can be useless sometimes.

--
Regards,
..

 

[Brian Goldsmith]

"." <asspunch@punkass.com> wrote

Legal frequency?? Suddenly feeling law-abiding now are we?

Is this aus.ethics or aus.electronics.

Fuck usenet can be useless sometimes.

***** Just like posters who hide behind a name like "."

Brian Goldsmith.

 

[John Tserkezis]

.. wrote:

Legal frequency?? Suddenly feeling law-abiding now are we?

Is this aus.ethics or aus.electronics.
Fuck usenet can be useless sometimes.

I wasn't questioning your ethics.

I was pointing out the irony of what you're asking for.

Your requirements stated:

Looking for ideas to bug a person in some way

Recording a telephone conversation is not illegal if all parties are aware
it's being recorded. However, your use of the word "bug" implied that least
one of the parties would not be aware of the recording.
Also your following statement:

I was thinking maybe put a bugging device into their mobile telephone

Implies a covert recording method which contradicts the "all parties know
about the recording" legal requirement, confirms that you're open to illegal
methods.

Ideally it would be quite powerful,

Anything but ultra low power transmitters unless licenced are illegal. I had
not considered you meant CB radio (up to 4W with no licence) but your other
requirement:

but I don't think it would fit

along with the general tone of your message implies that you don't already
have the smarts to do it, means you aer likely only open to "off-the-shelf"
solutions.
This would contradict with the CB radio option simply due to space
requirements. So, I'm guessing some other frequency: Which at any other than
mouse-fart powers would be illegal.


That along with your grunged emailed address implies that you wish to remain
anonymous, regardless of the fact we know your ISP (bigpond) and IP address
(141.168.4.148), so are actually quite transparent to the people you're trying
to stay anonymous from in the first place.


And of course your last requirement:

and transmit on a frequency that is legal.

Goes in the complete opposite direction of the rest of your message.

So, my original question still stands:

Suddenly feeling law-abiding now are we?
--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>

 

[.]

John Tserkezis wrote...

I was pointing out the irony of what you're asking for.

There's no irony. The reason I didn't want to transmit on an illegal
frequency, is because I don't want to get caught. Like most people, I
don't mind breaking the law as long as I don't get caught.

Implies a covert recording method which contradicts the "all parties know
about the recording" legal requirement, confirms that you're open to illegal
methods.

Nice work Sherlock.

This would contradict with the CB radio option simply due to space
requirements. So, I'm guessing some other frequency: Which at any other than
mouse-fart powers would be illegal.

Great. Finally getting some actual substance.

That along with your grunged emailed address implies that you wish to remain
anonymous,

Oh really? You sure it doesn't imply that I don't wish to receive spam?

regardless of the fact we know your ISP (bigpond) and IP address
(141.168.4.148), so are actually quite transparent to the people you're trying
to stay anonymous from in the first place.

LOL.

Goes in the complete opposite direction of the rest of your message.

So, my original question still stands:

Suddenly feeling law-abiding now are we?

Idiot.

--
Regards,
..

 

[.]

Brian Goldsmith wrote...

***** Just like posters who hide behind a name like "."

What's wrong with not wanting to remain relatively anonymous?

--
Regards,
..

 

[Phil Allison]

"." <asspunch@punkass.com> wrote in message

Brian Goldsmith wrote...

***** Just like posters who hide behind a name like "."

What's wrong with not wanting to remain relatively anonymous?

** Crims invariably want to be anonymous.

But even they do not ask kind folk using their REAL NAMES to advise them
in a PUBLIC FORUM how to ago about breaking the law.




............... Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

.. wrote:

Suddenly feeling law-abiding now are we?

Idiot.

Sure, that's why I know where to start looking, and you're left calling me an
idiot. Idiot.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>

 

[izzgood]

.. wrote:

John Tserkezis wrote...


I was pointing out the irony of what you're asking for.


There's no irony. The reason I didn't want to transmit on an illegal
frequency, is because I don't want to get caught. Like most people, I
don't mind breaking the law as long as I don't get caught.

Would irony include putting something into a phone to duplicate what the
phone is already doing, i.e: transmitting on a legal frequency? Or is
that something else.

Try a scanner.

 

[Phil Allison]

"izzgood" <not@this.address>

I was pointing out the irony of what you're asking for.


There's no irony. The reason I didn't want to transmit on an illegal
frequency, is because I don't want to get caught. Like most people, I
don't mind breaking the law as long as I don't get caught.



Would irony include putting something into a phone to duplicate what the
phone is already doing, i.e: transmitting on a legal frequency? Or is
that something else.

Try a scanner.

** They only worked with the old analogue mobile phones - and still do
with and analogue cordless ones.



............... Phil

 

[izzgood]

Phil Allison wrote:

"izzgood" <not@this.address

I was pointing out the irony of what you're asking for.


There's no irony. The reason I didn't want to transmit on an illegal
frequency, is because I don't want to get caught. Like most people, I
don't mind breaking the law as long as I don't get caught.



Would irony include putting something into a phone to duplicate what the
phone is already doing, i.e: transmitting on a legal frequency? Or is
that something else.

Try a scanner.



** They only worked with the old analogue mobile phones - and still do
with and analogue cordless ones.



.............. Phil




Yeah.. i realized that after i posted. Plus what he would be talking

about I guess is a bug that transmitted at all times, not just relaying
a call, and just using the phone for concealment and a power source.

Its actually not a bad idea if you were going to bug someone. It would
solve any proximity problem, as people usually keep their phones nearby,
and secondly keeping it powered, the buggee would take care of that by
recharging their phone regularly.

Low power FM is really the only feasible option and with that you can
only get a few hundred yards. You can tune it to somewhere just below
88 which means you can detune a standard radio receiver down a fraction
and pick it up but not have your target accidentally tune into it on
his/her car radio, and you wouldn't be bothered by legal considerations
transmitting at that frequency with a low power circuit. Small FM bug
circuits using surface mount components would keep the size down to the
point where you could probably find a space to stuff into the phone
casing somewhere. I doubt whether you could use the phones antenna tho
and still get any significant distance.

If you want something more powerful, you'd transmit the weaker FM signal
sent to a nearby concealed transceiver that can retransit on more
powerful legal AM CB frequencies. Don't ask me how, i'm just
spitballing here. A better idea would be to have it transmit to a
nearby voice activated recorder and just call by and change the tapes
every now and then. Otherwise you'd be doing a dick tracy and following
em around everywhere listening to em on your specially tuned car radio,
and remember, you never hear anything good about yourself.

 

[Phil Allison]

"izzgood" <not@this.address>

Try a scanner.

Phil wrote:

** They only worked with the old analogue mobile phones - and still
do
with and analogue cordless ones.


Yeah.. i realized that after i posted. Plus what he would be talking
about I guess is a bug that transmitted at all times, not just relaying
a call, and just using the phone for concealment and a power source.

Its actually not a bad idea if you were going to bug someone. It would
solve any proximity problem, as people usually keep their phones nearby,
and secondly keeping it powered, the buggee would take care of that by
recharging their phone regularly.

** The idea is absurd - like something out of a James Bond 007 movie.

The ( near impossible to fit ) bug in the phone would eventually be
discovered and the culprit who installed it would likely be known to the
phone owner - an arrest would ensue once the cops were informed.

Any attempt to benefit from or reveal to another the information gleaned
from monitoring the bug in the phone would give away the fact there WAS a
such an illegal bug in a certain person's phone.

An even quicker arrest would ensue then.



............ Phil

 

[Parmin]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> while reading the NewsGroups,
picked his nose and bring out news:2hdmcoFbd53qU1@uni-berlin.de:

"izzgood" <not@this.address

Try a scanner.


Phil wrote:

*SNIP*

Someone wrote:

Its actually not a bad idea if you were going to bug someone. It
would solve any proximity problem, as people usually keep their
phones nearby, and secondly keeping it powered, the buggee would take
care of that by recharging their phone regularly.



** The idea is absurd - like something out of a James Bond 007
movie.

The ( near impossible to fit ) bug in the phone

Not too hard to do.. been there done that

would eventually be
discovered and the culprit who installed it
would likely be known to the phone owner

most likely

an arrest would ensue once the cops were informed.

definitely not unless there is proof. Innocent until proven guilty.

informing the cops? them cops cant do much, except maybe charge you
with eavesdropping and let you out the same day. Heck arrests are
quite touchy things to do, cops could be sue for false arrests.

Any attempt to benefit from or reveal to another the information
gleaned
from monitoring the bug in the phone would give away the fact there
WAS a such an illegal bug in a certain person's phone.

it maybe a jealous husband (LOL) thats monitoring.

An even quicker arrest would ensue then.

nah.. crap!!! see above

 

[Phil Allison]

"Parmin" <rajabetawi@hotmail.NOSPAM.com>

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au

** The idea is absurd - like something out of a James Bond 007
movie.

The ( near impossible to fit ) bug in the phone

Not too hard to do.. been there done that

** Obvious and stupid lie.

an arrest would ensue once the cops were informed.

definitely not unless there is proof.

** Arrests can be made based on "reasonable suspicion" based on the claims
made by others.

Innocent until proven guilty.

** Nothing to do with what the cops can do.

informing the cops? them cops cant do much, except maybe charge you
with eavesdropping and let you out the same day.

** In NSW the Listening Devices Act provides penalties up to 5 years in
jail.

Any attempt to benefit from or reveal to another the information
gleaned from monitoring the bug in the phone would give away the fact
there
WAS a such an illegal bug in a certain person's phone.

it maybe a jealous husband (LOL) thats monitoring.

** Makes no difference.

An even quicker arrest would ensue then.

nah.. crap!!! see above

** For plenty of "crap" just read any of Parmin's posts.




.............. Phil

 

[Peter Johnson]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:2hdmcoFbd53qU1@uni-berlin.de...

"izzgood" <not@this.address

Try a scanner.


Phil wrote:

** They only worked with the old analogue mobile phones - and
still
do
with and analogue cordless ones.


Yeah.. i realized that after i posted. Plus what he would be talking
about I guess is a bug that transmitted at all times, not just relaying
a call, and just using the phone for concealment and a power source.

Its actually not a bad idea if you were going to bug someone. It would
solve any proximity problem, as people usually keep their phones nearby,
and secondly keeping it powered, the buggee would take care of that by
recharging their phone regularly.



** The idea is absurd - like something out of a James Bond 007 movie.

The ( near impossible to fit ) bug in the phone would eventually be
discovered and the culprit who installed it would likely be known to the
phone owner - an arrest would ensue once the cops were informed.

Any attempt to benefit from or reveal to another the information gleaned
from monitoring the bug in the phone would give away the fact there WAS a
such an illegal bug in a certain person's phone.

An even quicker arrest would ensue then.



........... Phil

Tend to agree with Phil, tapping what originates as a phone call AFAIK is
always illegal without a warrant or informing the other party involved, but
back on a more technical note I've noticed that on the ACA LIPD
(low-interference potential devices) list the maximum EIRP allowed for a
license-free transmitters in the 88 - 108 MHz band as 10uW.

Anyone know from a practical point of view what wireless microphones and
baby monitors put out expressed as EIRP and what sort of range 10uW EIRP
gives combined with a typical consumer FM radio? I'm much more of a digital
than RF type so would be very interested to see a step by step calculation
how how the propagation and likely acceptable reception distance can be
estimated.

As I see:

10uW = -20bBm
A 5uV sensitivity receiver = -33dBm
Therefore 13dB of loss can be accomodated

Lazily plugging into the free space calculator at
http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm shows that 100 meters at 100MHz
gives a free space loss of 52dB and according to a quick calculation I did I
thought that 13dB of loss amounted to less than 2 meters of propagation.

So the multiple choice answers are:

1) My assumptions over the sensitity of a normal FM radio / antenna are well
understated.

2) Most FM microphones / baby monitors are illegal under the LIPD.

3) Both of the above.

4) I'm an RF moron and should stick to digital only.

5) All of the above.


Regards,

Peter Johnson, CommLinx Solutions
http://www.commlinx.com.au/

 

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Johnson" <peter@nospam.commlinx.com.au>...

As I see:

10uW = -20bBm
A 5uV sensitivity receiver = -33dBm

** 5 uV into 50 ohms is ( using V squared /R) 5 exp -13 watts.

Which equals -93 dBm.

Care to try that loss calc again ?





............. Phil

 

[Richard Freeman]

"Parmin" <rajabetawi@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94F3BD621141FRajabetawihotmailNOS@203.26.24.228...

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> while reading the NewsGroups,
picked his nose and bring out news:2hdmcoFbd53qU1@uni-berlin.de:

"izzgood" <not@this.address

Try a scanner.


Phil wrote:

*SNIP*
Someone wrote:


Its actually not a bad idea if you were going to bug someone. It
would solve any proximity problem, as people usually keep their
phones nearby, and secondly keeping it powered, the buggee would take
care of that by recharging their phone regularly.



** The idea is absurd - like something out of a James Bond 007
movie.

The ( near impossible to fit ) bug in the phone

Not too hard to do.. been there done that

Why does this sound suspiciously like someone who has never had the joy of
pulling apart a modern mobile phone ?
There is barely enough room to fit the Phones electronics let alone anything
extra ......