How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]

[Dana]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:qq10j2hd1edidpidbapbpj9mk2qrrvtlva@4ax.com...

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:43:46 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:curti2daiiikn4bqlqohuq2v9t1bli9dmp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:48:32 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


You man there actually is something which will detect MP3 recorders?

There are devices that can detect when electronic devices are being
used.
There are devices that can be made that can detect almost any known
material
If said mp3 player is made of that material it can be detected.



Which is not entirely applicable,

Sure it is

Nope, not without the scenario.

Sure it is.

since plenty of
non-recorders are made of circuit boards, ICs & other
discretes, and some plastic. Cell phone and pager are two
quite common ones.

Yep, and all are detectable, and all have signatures.

You have not established that the signature (difference) of
such a device can be discriminated from a different device.

It is being done today.

The scenario has not been defined enough to know if the
device will be turned on within the distance of the
scanner/other detection device.

To detect semiconducter junctions the operating state of the device being
measured is not important.

Detecting electronics devices in general, is it useful?

Depends on who you ask
The OP is not the only one who wants to ensure no one is able to record
conversations, or hear conversations they should not be hearing.

We
dont know the exact scenario,

He gave the scenario.


No.

The scenario was presented with enough detail.

what the result would be of a
positive detection but as above, cell phones and pagers
would tend to be caught and are going to be far more common
and innocuous than a recording device, though in the former
case, the phone may have recording capability too.

True enough, but the technology is there to do what is being requested.
Now
if the OP can afford it, or even obtain it is a different issue.

You have not established this.

Your lack of knowledge of the systems involved is not my problem.
The technology does exist to do what the person wants.
Now how large this equipment is, and how much it costs, and even if it is
available to us regular joe blows is something different.

>

 

[Dana]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:l520j2tmtv2qjhskjga8evace310h6buot@4ax.com...

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:15:03 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:curti2daiiikn4bqlqohuq2v9t1bli9dmp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:48:32 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


You man there actually is something which will detect MP3 recorders?

There are devices that can detect when electronic devices are being
used.
There are devices that can be made that can detect almost any known
material
If said mp3 player is made of that material it can be detected.



Which is not entirely applicable, since plenty of
non-recorders are made of circuit boards, ICs & other
discretes, and some plastic. Cell phone and pager are two
quite common ones.

And what is a common item to circuit boards, IC's, cell phones, pagers,
MP3
players, etc.

Yes, which is one of the reasons why detection of these
won't help, unless ALL such devices are banned which is
unlikely... but again, we dont have the specific scenario to
consider.

Depends on the OP, his office can ban those items in the work place.
The point remains they are detectable.

There are devices made to detect the presence of semiconductors, and
these
have been out for ages.
And now with the war on terror going on, you would not believe what kind
of
sensors they are coming up with.

Minor modifications of some of these units would not be very difficult to
detect a mere MP3 in someones pocket.

Unfounded speculation.

Nope.

> >But then these would not be cheap either, if you can even get one.

 

[kony]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:42:49 -0800, "Dana"
<raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

The point remains they are detectable.

You mean the point you never made.

 

[kony]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:37:33 -0800, "Dana"
<raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

You have not established that the signature (difference) of
such a device can be discriminated from a different device.

It is being done today.

What "it"?

MP3 players recording?

I doubt it, show us even a complete theoretical description
of it being possible including the readings from such a
demonstration... let alone a purpose built device that
exists for this purpose.

 

[Dana]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:1tb0j29mk9ko216a4ilp37234nek4rqasm@4ax.com...

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:42:49 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


The point remains they are detectable.



You mean the point you never made.

Electronic devices made the point.
They exist, you may not be aware of them, but that is your issue.

 

[Dana]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:utb0j2dvulp7l07bgocv24fobn9mlf8jlp@4ax.com...

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:37:33 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


You have not established that the signature (difference) of
such a device can be discriminated from a different device.

It is being done today.


What "it"?

Devices are being discriminated by their signature.
Various sensors are doing this.

 

[kony]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:45:56 -0800, "Dana"
<raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices
proves detection of an MP3 player recording.

I never said it can detect an MP3 player recording.
I said it can detect an MP3 player, or pretty much anything electronic.

The thread is about detecting an MP3 player. Show us it can
be done, regardless of whether recording or not. It would
have to be discriminated from other devices, and DEPENDING
ON SCENARIO, from a fair distance and continuously, else the
person carrying it just turns it on when needed.

We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too
vaguely) posed,

Actually what he needs is a device to scan for electronic devices, and they
exist already. How the OP handles the knowledge of such sweeps depends on
him.

I have never claimed "electronic devices" can't be detected.
It's not enough, electronic devices are everywhere! It'll
have to discriminate, unless you're in a 3rd world country
where they can just go ahead and shoot anyone they suspect-
so there was no need for a scanner at all.

 

[kony]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:39:11 -0800, "Dana"
<raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:84k0j21rharpk5dd23n6q2gf6jbvvdh85v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:40:03 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:utb0j2dvulp7l07bgocv24fobn9mlf8jlp@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:37:33 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


You have not established that the signature (difference) of
such a device can be discriminated from a different device.

It is being done today.


What "it"?

Devices are being discriminated by their signature.
Various sensors are doing this.

Do you know how many MP3 players are out there?

Yeah, so what. There are devices that can detect semiconducter junctions.
MP3 players have semiconductor junctions, hence they can be detected.

No, you can detect semiconductor junctions then, but not the
identity, nor function, of what larger device you have
detected as having semiconductors.

Now how about the phones that can record?

They also have semiconductor junctions, hence they can also be detected.

Again, we are not merely trying to detect some arbitrary
substance, it has to be a complete detection that
discriminates a recording MP3 player. If all we cared about
was that "something" was there, we have no need to consider
semiconductor presence at all.

A theory about
what might be possible someday, is not same thing as what IS
being done today.

Semiconductor junctions can be detected today.

Again, it's pointless.

You seem to be vaguely claiming it's possible without really
considering EXACTLY what is necessary.

Hogwash.
You seem not to understand what can be done with electronics.

You seem unable to describe any way to discriminate the very
thing this thread is about.

There are some devices that use the priciples of a MRI and shrink it down to
a hand held sized device to scan for explosives.

Ok, but again, it doesn't tell us the purpose of common
items like plastic, or semiconductors. Explosives aren't
going to be used in practically everything that plugs into a
wall or takes a battery.

Since the compounds in
explosives give off a unique signature after being exposed to a strong
magnetic field, that signature is then stored in memory.

Maybe some, but not all will give off a magnetic field. It
doesn't matter though, there is nothing in particular in an
MP3 player that would discriminate it from a cell phone. Is
it not obvious to you that common items people are allowed
to have, can't be false detected? Perhaps whoever is
subject to this search is first told to empty all pockets of
such things, but as already written, we'd need to know such
a scenario to delve into this kinds of tangents.

Now your sensor
emits a magnetic field, and the reciever looks for the signature of the
explosives.

Great, if a recording MP3 player is made out of explosives.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between random
non-applicable information and the crucial details necessary
to discriminate a recording MP3 player.

So it is only a matter of expanding your signature library, and your
receiver can be programmed to look for pretty much anything.

Nope, and you might as well stop pretending you know about
this stuff because you have pretty well given yourself away.
There is no one signature an MP3 player would have, it's not
made of one unique material and there are myriad different
players with different % of several materials, but
practically all of them are commonplace, unlike explosives.

This is only one of many new tools that are out.
The semiconductor junction detector has been out for around 30 years.

Show one recording MP3 player having been detected like
this, anyone who claims they have a specific device that
does it and can explain how- because it sure as heck isn't
using a signature like with explosives.

 

[kony]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:40:03 -0800, "Dana"
<raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:utb0j2dvulp7l07bgocv24fobn9mlf8jlp@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:37:33 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


You have not established that the signature (difference) of
such a device can be discriminated from a different device.

It is being done today.


What "it"?

Devices are being discriminated by their signature.
Various sensors are doing this.

Do you know how many MP3 players are out there?

Now how about the phones that can record? A theory about
what might be possible someday, is not same thing as what IS
being done today.

You seem to be vaguely claiming it's possible without really
considering EXACTLY what is necessary.

 

[kony]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:37:24 -0800, "Dana"
<raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:1tb0j29mk9ko216a4ilp37234nek4rqasm@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:42:49 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


The point remains they are detectable.



You mean the point you never made.

Electronic devices made the point.
They exist, you may not be aware of them, but that is your issue.

It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices
proves detection of an MP3 player recording. Rather, it is
your burden to be specific with the claim that it's possible
by showing even one reproducible example.

We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too
vaguely) posed, would allow identification of a device as an
MP3 player that is recording. Identifying the existence of
"some" kind of device, then a search uncovering this device
and a physical examination to determine that it is recording
(looking at the screen or lights) is another matter.

 

[Dana]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:84k0j21rharpk5dd23n6q2gf6jbvvdh85v@4ax.com...

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:40:03 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:utb0j2dvulp7l07bgocv24fobn9mlf8jlp@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:37:33 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


You have not established that the signature (difference) of
such a device can be discriminated from a different device.

It is being done today.


What "it"?

Devices are being discriminated by their signature.
Various sensors are doing this.

Do you know how many MP3 players are out there?

Yeah, so what. There are devices that can detect semiconducter junctions.
MP3 players have semiconductor junctions, hence they can be detected.

Now how about the phones that can record?

They also have semiconductor junctions, hence they can also be detected.

A theory about
what might be possible someday, is not same thing as what IS
being done today.

Semiconductor junctions can be detected today.

You seem to be vaguely claiming it's possible without really
considering EXACTLY what is necessary.

Hogwash.
You seem not to understand what can be done with electronics.
There are some devices that use the priciples of a MRI and shrink it down to
a hand held sized device to scan for explosives. Since the compounds in
explosives give off a unique signature after being exposed to a strong
magnetic field, that signature is then stored in memory. Now your sensor
emits a magnetic field, and the reciever looks for the signature of the
explosives.
So it is only a matter of expanding your signature library, and your
receiver can be programmed to look for pretty much anything.
This is only one of many new tools that are out.
The semiconductor junction detector has been out for around 30 years.
>

 

[max]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:13:43 -0500, Mitch Crane <a-one@a-two.a-three>
wrote:

max <maxicon13@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:l01ui2tv25p1lnpt1vc2kdf871dai2p9a9@4ax.com:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:22:57 -0500, Mitch Crane <a-one@a-two.a-three
wrote:

Joey <no@no-email.com> wrote in news:Xns9858A161645B271F3M4@127.0.0.1:

You say, "search them physically"? I have to tell you that I don;'t
work in the sort of environment where that kind of behaviour is
considered acceptable!

Would an all nude work environment be acceptable? It would make hiding
such devices difficult so you wouldn't have to do anything untoward
like searching people.

You'd be surprised where people can hide things:

http://www.dailymotion.com/blog/video/575462?key=467i4l5zyuv3g7lzul2w64
rs1iaad00kom8c0ii3&play=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsusiebright.blogs.com

Caution! NSFW!

Sure, but I don't think the MP3 recorder would work very well in there, so
the point is moot.

Don't see why not - it's a solid state device. Disguise a little mic
as a labial piercing stud, run the wire up the folds, and it's very
unlikely anyone would inspect it closely enough to figure it out, even
if it were visible behind the bush.

Having the recorder embedded would help reduce what little detectable
EMI a low power device like that give off, and the mic wire would only
carry audio freqs, which don't transmit very far at those power
levels.

You just have to think outside the box a bit.

max

 

[Dana]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:d7k0j2127qr6iokoe39pth9kbihhdhc4ph@4ax.com...

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:37:24 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:1tb0j29mk9ko216a4ilp37234nek4rqasm@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:42:49 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


The point remains they are detectable.



You mean the point you never made.

Electronic devices made the point.
They exist, you may not be aware of them, but that is your issue.

It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices
proves detection of an MP3 player recording.

I never said it can detect an MP3 player recording.
I said it can detect an MP3 player, or pretty much anything electronic.

We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too
vaguely) posed,

Actually what he needs is a device to scan for electronic devices, and they
exist already. How the OP handles the knowledge of such sweeps depends on
him.
He can either ask for the people to remove all electronic devices, or he can
watch what he says.

would allow identification of a device as an
MP3 player that is recording.

Not recording, but its existence. Its existence can be determined, and it
does not have to be on, as there are devices that look for semiconductor
junctions(pretty much any electronic device that has at least a diode in
it).

Identifying the existence of
"some" kind of device, then a search uncovering this device
and a physical examination to determine that it is recording
(looking at the screen or lights) is another matter.

True, but the OP would know there is some kind of elctronic device on the
person that may be capable of recording. How the OP uses that info is up to
him.

 

[Dana]

"max" <maxicon13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kqm0j29vl0c1rtqoc40s41p8mbqmrs62s6@4ax.com...

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:13:43 -0500, Mitch Crane <a-one@a-two.a-three
wrote:

max <maxicon13@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:l01ui2tv25p1lnpt1vc2kdf871dai2p9a9@4ax.com:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:22:57 -0500, Mitch Crane <a-one@a-two.a-three
wrote:

Joey <no@no-email.com> wrote in news:Xns9858A161645B271F3M4@127.0.0.1:

You say, "search them physically"? I have to tell you that I don;'t
work in the sort of environment where that kind of behaviour is
considered acceptable!

Would an all nude work environment be acceptable? It would make hiding
such devices difficult so you wouldn't have to do anything untoward
like searching people.

You'd be surprised where people can hide things:

http://www.dailymotion.com/blog/video/575462?key=467i4l5zyuv3g7lzul2w64
rs1iaad00kom8c0ii3&play=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsusiebright.blogs.com

Caution! NSFW!

Sure, but I don't think the MP3 recorder would work very well in there,
so
the point is moot.

Don't see why not - it's a solid state device. Disguise a little mic
as a labial piercing stud, run the wire up the folds, and it's very
unlikely anyone would inspect it closely enough to figure it out, even
if it were visible behind the bush.

Having the recorder embedded would help reduce what little detectable
EMI a low power device like that give off, and the mic wire would only
carry audio freqs, which don't transmit very far at those power
levels.

You just have to think outside the box a bit.

max

At which point a cavity search would have to be done

>

 

[Mitch Crane]

max <maxicon13@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kqm0j29vl0c1rtqoc40s41p8mbqmrs62s6@4ax.com:

Sure, but I don't think the MP3 recorder would work very well in
there, so the point is moot.

Don't see why not - it's a solid state device. Disguise a little mic
as a labial piercing stud, run the wire up the folds, and it's very
unlikely anyone would inspect it closely enough to figure it out, even
if it were visible behind the bush.

Yeah, good point. I never considered an external mic. I guess the nude
office will have to ban labial studs. They should also ban scrotal studs in
the interest of fairness.

--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra

 

[Mitch Crane]

max <maxicon13@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kqm0j29vl0c1rtqoc40s41p8mbqmrs62s6@
4ax.com:

You just have to think outside the box a bit.

By the way, your filthy double entendre was not lost on me. Frankly, I'm
shocked and appalled that you'd take a serious discussion and turn it into
a forum for your smut humor.

--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra

 

[Joey]

On 14 Oct 2006, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:37:24 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices
proves detection of an MP3 player recording. Rather, it is
your burden to be specific with the claim that it's possible
by showing even one reproducible example.

We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too
vaguely) posed, would allow identification of a device as an
MP3 player that is recording. Identifying the existence of
"some" kind of device, then a search uncovering this device
and a physical examination to determine that it is recording
(looking at the screen or lights) is another matter.

I can clarify whatever you are unsure about if it helps.

 

[Joey]

On 13 Oct 2006, paulmd@efn.org <paulmd@efn.org> wrote:

Joey wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006, Aly <alison@logicsaysNOSPAM.com> wrote:

Joey <no@no-email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98593B2AEAC71F3M4@127.0.0.1...
[...]

Sorry for my rather unhelpful reply, I'm having one of my moments
where I only talk to microcontrollers.


No problems.

Seriously though. There's very little in world that's so
important. I've worked with people that would *record* meetings
thinking they were of vital importance when in actual truth, no one
could care less.

I guess it would just cause people to be more careful about what
they say. I'm unable to view those videos you've supplied as this
is a development machine without any clutter on it.

eBay could be a good place to buy such things though. All sorts of
stuff comes out of the AsiaPac.


This is to document something quite serious.

Are you the trying to be the documenter, or trying to avoid being
the documentee? Or both?

I don't want to be recorded.

But I would like to know if I can be detected if I do attempt to make a
recording.

 

[Dana]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:dgm1j253id78ver31u2bejbr6b7au63khr@4ax.com...

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:39:11 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:84k0j21rharpk5dd23n6q2gf6jbvvdh85v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:40:03 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:utb0j2dvulp7l07bgocv24fobn9mlf8jlp@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:37:33 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


You have not established that the signature (difference) of
such a device can be discriminated from a different device.

It is being done today.


What "it"?

Devices are being discriminated by their signature.
Various sensors are doing this.

Do you know how many MP3 players are out there?

Yeah, so what. There are devices that can detect semiconducter junctions.
MP3 players have semiconductor junctions, hence they can be detected.



No, you can detect semiconductor junctions then

And mp3 players have semiconducter junctions, hence they can be detected.

Now how about the phones that can record?

They also have semiconductor junctions, hence they can also be detected.


A theory about
what might be possible someday, is not same thing as what IS
being done today.

Semiconductor junctions can be detected today.

Again, it's pointless.

No, it will tell the OP that electronic devices that can may be able to
record his converstaionare present.

You seem to be vaguely claiming it's possible without really
considering EXACTLY what is necessary.

Hogwash.
You seem not to understand what can be done with electronics.


There are some devices that use the priciples of a MRI and shrink it down
to
a hand held sized device to scan for explosives.

Ok, but again, it doesn't tell us the purpose of common
items like plastic, or semiconductors. Explosives aren't
going to be used in practically everything that plugs into a
wall or takes a battery.

But the signatures of plastic, batterues can be put into a library and the
scanner will then alert you of there presence.

Since the compounds in
explosives give off a unique signature after being exposed to a strong
magnetic field, that signature is then stored in memory.

Maybe some, but not all will give off a magnetic field.

It is not the magnetic field that is being detected, it is the signature
emitted when exposed to a magnetic field. IE when the molocules return to a
normal state, they emit a signature.

Now your sensor
emits a magnetic field, and the reciever looks for the signature of the
explosives.


So it is only a matter of expanding your signature library, and your
receiver can be programmed to look for pretty much anything.

Nope,

Yep

This is only one of many new tools that are out.
The semiconductor junction detector has been out for around 30 years.

 

[Dana]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:2an1j2lbsqo44sjotbi7f1knd3sbo7vqbf@4ax.com...

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:45:56 -0800, "Dana"
raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:


It's not my issue to claim detection of different devices
proves detection of an MP3 player recording.

I never said it can detect an MP3 player recording.
I said it can detect an MP3 player, or pretty much anything electronic.


The thread is about detecting an MP3 player.

Yep, and there are devices that can detect electronic devices.
How the OP uses that Information is up to him.

We have no reason to believe a scenario like the OP has (too
vaguely) posed,

Actually what he needs is a device to scan for electronic devices, and
they
exist already. How the OP handles the knowledge of such sweeps depends on
him.


I have never claimed "electronic devices" can't be detected.

You have been doing that this entire thread.
The OP needs a device that can detect electronic devices, he can get one for
under 1000 dollars. Now how he uses such a device is up to him.