Spycraft - Melton [105]
Given the uncertainty of equipment performance, it became common practice for techs to rebuild or retrofit devices in the field. Techs who knew something about electronics could look at circuit boards and see where, with just a little redesign, they could be made smaller, more reliable. Once a tech in Mexico City, discovering a circuit layout in an electronics hobbyist magazine, reconstructed a newly arrived audio transmitter in his home shop. “It was spy gear,” he boasted, “untouched by Headquarters’ hands.”
Normally reliable commercial equipment, such as the microphones used for mic and wire operations, sometimes presented unanticipated problems. Top-of-the-line carbon microphones used by the stars of the American recording industry were so sensitive that, when first installed, they captured voice audio anywhere in a room. However, when the mic remained stationery for an extended time, the carbon granules settled and compacted, like cereal settling to the bottom of the box, dramatically reducing its sensitivity. In a recording studio or concert hall, this was not a problem because the mic moved with the artist, but hidden in a wall undisturbed, the mic’s performance deteriorated over months or years.
To remedy these types of problems, TSD set up an equipment-testing division in 1964 to perform independent quality assurance evaluations of spy gear. The unit conducted independent tests and certified all of TSD’s equipment whether it was created in Agency labs, built by outside contractors, or acquired commercially. Anything a tech eventually used in the field was tested for performance in heat, cold, wet, and dry conditions along with an array of punishing tests where the device was bent, dropped, abused, and vibrated. The techs welcomed the tests, jokingly saying they needed all the equipment to be “case officer proof and agent proof.” Rough field treatment could be expected. DCI Richard Helms himself observed that case officers had to learn “not to fling these [devices] into the back seat of an automobile, but to treat them with the delicate hand they deserved.”4
By the late 1960s the techs saw audio equipment reliability jump to better than 95 percent. Standardized testing eliminated most of problems before the equipment reached the field. Nevertheless, operational realities could still trump well-designed and thoroughly tested equipment. After one tech successfully installed a wireless bug in a European city, reception from the transmitter was punctuated by intermittent static at the listening post. The breaks in transmission appeared random. The techs were stumped when even at 0200 hours, with the audio working perfectly, static would suddenly obliterate the voices, then, a few moments later, die down and the clear audio resume. Troubleshooting of the equipment did nothing to eliminate the interference. Then, looking out the window during one of the static-filled transmissions, the tech noticed motorcycles on the street. The next time static occurred, he could see another motorcycle and realized motorcycles passing between the transmitter in the target building and the receiver created static. The bug was picking up ignition interference from the motorcycles on the street.
Another lesson learned was adapting technology to covert operating requirements. Normally, trade-offs between technology and environment are relatively easy. In the 1960s, if a new stereophonic hi-fi system did not fit on the bookcase, purchasing a larger bookcase with wider shelves solved the problem. In 2008, rearranging a roomful of furniture to accommodate installation of a large plasma screen TV solves a similar problem. However, such