The Trusted Professions - Chapter 4

| | Comments (21)

Our surveillance broke into two main parts- invasion and observation. Observations are non-intrusive, mostly legal and of a passive nature. Watching and listening, more or less. Even though you?d have a terrible drag through court, it?s very difficult to convict someone of listening into a parabolic microphone directed at their house. There are just too many variables to prove- variables that are usually unprovable by the time the court case comes around. Peeping is a little more difficult to actually get away with, but again very difficult to prove in court. Especially for upstanding young men like ourselves. Going through people?s trash is also considered observation, its low risk and non-invasive, but generally useless. I can?t recall a single case which has been broken by something in someone?s trash. Plus you get all messy while you?re doing it, which is a real pain.


Invasion is illegal and slightly riskier, but almost always breaks a case. You?ve got your electronic invasions- hacking into their computer network- anyone with anything worth knowing is on broadband these days, and it?s barely harder to get in than it is for them to get out. Even if she doesn?t use the computer to send traceable e-mails, it can often be a place she keeps important data or even a diary that might lead to a secret we could use against the subject. Hijacking their cellphone signal, you can record all calls and then ride it back into the phone to search through the text messages and phone book- looking for any frequently called numbers. That?s usually an instant hit- if there?s an affair going on, the phone knows about it- often before the people having the affair do- and they?re all too happy to talk about it to anyone who looks?although some mistresses do keep separate phones for just that reason. Talk about paranoid!

Let me tell you, most people are easy to surveil, because they?d never in a million years dream that anyone would be interested enough in them to follow them `round all day or hack their computer. You can virtually stand right in front of them ten times a day and they just look right through you. Most people are so deep in their own world they miss maybe ninety percent of what happens around them. It?s the unreasonably paranoid ones that you have a rough time with, even though they must have made everyone around them miserable by being so incredibly anal about everything and obsessed with themselves enough to think they were being watched the whole time. And that?s the price they pay to avoid this one moment in their lives when they?re actually right- and even then we figure out ways around the patterns- kind of doesn?t seem worth it, does it?

The subject was Gillette Ovay, real name Sue Hanger. She was an Essex girl who saw the only way she wouldn?t lose her shockingly beautiful features to the realities of her forthcoming life on a housing estate was to use them to secure employment as a trophy wife on the arm of some rich and powerful man. And they didn?t come much richer or more powerful in the media scene that Saul Colmes. She latched on to him at the entrance to an awards ceremony, flashed him a bit of her leg, and the rest was history- The Sun ran the photo of her on Colmes? arm. She was offered a modelling contract twenty-four hours later, the duration of which she was in a locked hotel room at the Paddington Ritz with Colmes. Colmes left Keri and went to live in one of his many other houses with Gilette.

They?ve been seen together in the press ever since- they?re virtually inseparable. To surveil her was to get him in on the bargain, except for the few times when he was doing his show or she was doing her incredibly infrequent but, thanks to his influence, incredibly financially rewarding, modelling work. She certainly wasn?t a tough girl to watch, I?ll tell you that much- Colmes picked her out of a thousand potential gold-diggers for a very good reason- she was stunning.

Oh, you mean that kind of tough.

Right, right! No, she wasn?t tough to watch in the other sense, either. She had a million paparazzi following her all around all day and she loved it, so we normally just blended right in. The press all got to hang out in the studio while she was shooting anyway, she?d come over and chat to us, she simply couldn?t get enough exposure, it was all so new to her.

What was your impression of her?

Nice enough girl, I suppose. A bit simple. In a mean kind of way that made her seem cunning. Model, popstar, actress, author, It girl, she didn?t care how she got famous just as long as she was famous. I don?t know how she?s doing now, probably milking Saul?s death for every TV spot she can muster, but once her fame starts to ebb, she?ll starve to death from lack of attention. That kind always does, in the end. Can?t be famous forever, y?know? Best not to make yourself dependent on it.

So, our first phase of surveillance was strictly observation, for about three weeks, and that phase is pretty boring. You?ve probably never had much occasion to think of it, but most people spend pretty much most of the time by themselves, not making much noise at all. Even odder than that is that when people are by themselves, they made a huge range of noises that often they aren?t conscious of. Sighing, flatulating, talking to themselves, singing softly, creaking every damned thing about them. The moment you turn up the gain to hear what they?re saying to themselves is bound to be the moment they decide to start rummaging through a cupboard of pots to deafen you. It can be pretty nerve-racking.

The worst part was, it seemed like they had a pretty committed relationship. It was still in its opening stages, and he showered her with presents, bankrolled her with his credit card, gave her advice on how to further her career- generally seemed like a loving and supportive partner. We couldn?t find any evidence that either of them were putting a foot wrong. The press played up that she had connections with the singer of a local band, but she put a stop to it after meeting Colmes. So we delved into her past, looking for any ex-boyfriends, ex-jobs, old mistakes that we could use against her. Again, nothing. She was a small town girl who had, for most of her existence, lived a small town life.

She did coke, but so did he, so even with photos, which we had, that wasn?t really enough to break them up- just make life very difficult for her. I suppose we could have bribed him with the photos but he made his reputation on being a hard-living law-flaunter, he?d probably take the photos and make them the headline of his next column. As far as embarrassment went, he was fairly untouchable. Their relationship seemed similarly ironclad. We gathered that Colmes had actually proposed to Gillette before we started to monitor them, but they?d agreed to keep it private until his divorce with Keri came through. I didn?t detect any malice on his part towards Keri, or Gillette. He seemed like a pretty regular guy behind the scenes, particularly affectionate towards Gillette, none of his on-air pompousness or callousness seemed to cross over?okay, maybe some of his pompousness, but not so much as you?d think. The relationship seemed pretty genuine. We faithfully catalogued any audio, video or film we made- you could probably sell it for a small fortune if you manage to track it down.

Phase two was invasive, but honestly didn?t pull us up much that we didn?t already know. Her cellphone was full of gushing sexts that were all to him- she barely communicated with anyone else, except maybe her manager and some close friends. It?s not to say she didn?t get offers, she was inundated with them, but turned them all down. E-mails to her friends and family were all about how in love with Saul she was and what a great time she was having; e-mails to him were much the same. Apart from e-mails she didn?t seem to use her computer for much; I got the feeling from her text-message-style writing that she wasn?t particularly computer literate. Or not particularly literate at all, really.

We had a teleconference with Keri and discussed our options. At the time, and this is somewhat important to point out, at the time we didn?t show her any of the hard data we?d gathered, the recordings and the video. We just generally outlined to her that we?d been unable to find any evidence that Gillette was seeing anyone else, and as a general rule of thumb if you follow someone?s every movement for three weeks and don?t find any evidence that they?re sleeping with someone, they won?t be sleeping with anyone. She was one hundred percent a one-man gal.

As you can imagine, this wasn?t what Keri really wanted to hear- her own belief in her perception of Gillette?s character was so strong that she found it difficult to accept contradicting evidence. She certainly wasn?t happy. But after some gentle coaxing, we had the opportunity to discuss which broader avenues were open to her.

?Now, where there?s no actual evidence to use against someone, there always exists the possibility of manufacturing evidence to use against someone. Normally, manufacturing evidence is fraught with difficulty because, by its very nature, there must always exist the possibility of disproving it. For example if we paid someone to claim he was sleeping with Gillette, it wouldn?t take much investigation to prove that he wasn?t.

?However in this particular case we have the opportunity to manufacture real evidence, evidence that can?t be disproven. Evidence that is real.?

?How in the world can you manufacture evidence that is real?" Keri gasped, "Surely then it would not be manufactured at all!?

Jez and I looked at each other cautiously. This was a difficult matter, we had to tread ground carefully. She?d already tacitly implied that she wouldn?t have a problem with Saul having other lovers, so long as they led to the dismissal of Gillette. However, casually mentioning something offhand and confronting the reality of it head-on are two very different things, as anyone who has gone to prison will be more than happy to tell you, after having a bit of a cry first.

?Mrs. Colmes,? Jez began ?there?s always the possibility of using a honey-trap.?

?A honey-trap? What is that?? Mrs. Colmes? voice buzzed from the phone, distorting slightly. Her mouth must have been pressed to close to her phone?s pickup.

Jez looked at the floor and then looked back at the phone. He was talking in that annoying half-shouting half-talking manner everyone seems to use when talking to a speakerphone. At a speakerphone, I should say.

?Sometimes a client comes to us and wants us to test the fidelity of their spouse. They get the feeling their spouse is straying, but not with any one particular person. In order to be sure, well, actually, heh, more often than not in order to punish their spouse, they hire us to create a test for their partner.

?A honey-trap is a?a person, someone we hire occasionally, in order to seduce a particular target. We film the seduction and present that film to the client as evidence of the target?s infidelity. It?s a sting operation. Entrapment, really. Not particularly legal, but not really illegal either, and once you have the person on tape, you have them over a permanent barrel.?

?I see where you?re going with this,? the phone zubbed, ?so you get some hunk to pick her up when she?s a bit tipsy, film them going at it and then we show it to Saul and he leaves her.?

Another uncomfortable look passed between me and Jez.

?Actually Mrs. Colmes, based on our reading of the situation, Ms. Ovay would be an extremely unlikely target subject for this sort of procedure. She literally turns down similar offers almost every day- offers from men far better than we could afford, to tell you the truth. She seems entirely devoted to your husband, at least at this early stage of the relationship.?

?Then how would a honey-trap be useful??

?We weren?t thinking of using her for Ms. Ovay, Mrs. Colmes. We thought your husband might be a more appropriate target.?

?Ah. I see.?

?The way we read the situation, Mrs. Colmes, is that even if Ms. Ovay did make a temporary slip-up, a one-off encounter, your husband might still forgive her, given that he is, by your own testimony, given to similar slips himself. However we know that Mr. Colmes has an aggressive personality, we know he responds very strongly to beautiful women, and we know that he?s prone to the occasional indiscretion. We think these factors combined would make him a particularly suitable target.

?It?s six months into the relationship; his eye is bound to be roving. We?re fairly confident we can find someone that will turn his head. Bottom line is, you put a man in a bar with a glass of whiskey and an attractive woman who is aggressively interested in him, there?ll be a reaction. Takes a certain skill to turn that reaction into a filmable encounter, but not a particularly rare skill.

?Our personality profile of Ms. Ovay heavily indicates that footage of Mr. Colmes straying from her would completely devastate her- particularly if splashed all over the press. She thrives on fame, but she?s also very proud of her beauty, and being upstaged by another woman would humiliate her- possibly enough to send her all the way back to Essex. Certainly enough to fracture the relationship.

?The only question is?is that something you?d be prepared to go through with??

The phone sat silently on the desk for a few moments. The red light that indicated a connected call blinked on and off.

?Well...? her voice sounded tinny after the silence, ??if you think it will work.?

?We think it?s worth a try, Mrs. Colmes. If it doesn?t work, no harm done.? I said, possibly one of the least correct things I?ve ever uttered.

?Will she be?safe?from diseases, I mean??

?We?ll take every precaution, Mrs. Colmes.?

?But what if he just switches to her? What if it does work, but he just takes up with this honey-trap, instead??

?The person in question will be completely under our control, Madam.? Jez issued assuringly, ?she?ll do what we ask her to do, and when the objective is achieved, she?ll simply step to one side, never to be heard of again.?

That sounds like a pretty tall order- someone who will not only be able to seduce Saul Colmes, but can be relied on to disappear at the required moment. Were you able to find anyone?

Yeah, me!

You?

Yeah, I dressed up in drag. I make a totally hot chick.

Really?

No! I?m kidding, of course. We had someone in mind already. A woman. Max.


Max?

?

Are you okay? You look a little?

Fucking bloody cunt-shit-fuck-hell-ball-sucking MAX!

21 Comments

First off, good news, I've found you another word - 'around' in line 5 of par 3.

And are 'sexts' sex texts? If so, nice one.

I find I'm not skipping ahead, I want to read it continuously, which is good because I'm generally a skimmer - you're keeping the reader engaged.

Right, next chapter please.

Good spotting! +1 word added.

Sexts are sex texts! I never really "got" sexts. I'm a two-handed texter, you see.

I also find it very difficult to read large bodies of text on a computer monitor, so it's nice to know it's, ah, working, so to speak.

Gasp! Chapter 5 has not been written! Last night I just fell straight to sleep. Fortunately I have three days in which to write it, and I have the first paragraph all written in my head so hopefully it's all downhill from there.

i don't have any criticism, i just wanted to say how much i am enjoying it all.

Hmm, I think sexts works when it's you and me talking but I don't think its a widely used term to put in a book.

Some technical issues. AFAIK it's pretty hard to crack a cell phone signal as it's pretty well encrypted. It's possible to hack into a phone via bluetooth, with varying limits on what you can pull off the phone. Obviously getting the phone itself, it's pretty easy to hack.

Broadband wise, if you can get on the same node as the user, most stuff is sent in the clear and pretty easy to hack. If someones on wireless, even encrypted, that's hackable. And by breaking in and adding your own networking equipment into the system, you'd have access to a lot.

Being a technical pedant, I think those two bits can be improved a bit to make it more plausible. otherwise the rest is pretty good.

>>I think sexts works when it's you and me talking

Dude, I thought we agreed never to mention that again?!?! No seriously, Nat understood what sexts were, I'm sure most cell users are familiar with the term.

As far as you know, cellphone signals are well encrypted. Fortunately The Trusted Professions have purchased the B90 iHack, which is a confidential piece of technology which picks up the carrier wave (a cellphone is, in essence, a two-channel radio) and decodes the encryption using a nonrepeating boolean algorithm based on the second signal/returning carrier wave (which the phone itself must decode). However I thought getting into this level of technical detail would bog the story down a little. I'll dedicate a chapter to this fascinating piece of technology if I need more words near the finish line.

Computers are, as everyone knows from constant news article about how some `teen hacked into the CIA database, totally hackable via the `net.

Computers are tottally hackable, but with all the security patches and firewalls turned on as default, it's getting much harder. Much easier to sit on the node and snoop ip packets.

I still think sexts are way to localised for it to be a good general term in a book. Even half the readers going huh is too many. I'll let your publisher make you take them out.

I'm self-publishing, so sexts stays in.

The problem with just snooping IP packets is that you only get information going to or from the computer. The goal here is to get INTO the computer and have a search through her C: drive. Fortunately Gillette is not technically savvy so she never bothered installing the various firewalls and security patches required for complete computer security, and even if she had, if the encryption had been invented that couldn't possibly be broken, no-one would release it to the public anyway, because constantly releasing new and superior levels of encryption is such a good racket. Part of this racket is that the encryption services release the workaround for these firewalls for obscene amounts of money to PI companies after each release, so all publicly available security firewalls are equally hackable to TTP, who have the code breaker a week before the code is even released. Neat, huh?

Unplausible.

Maybe you're unplausible.

Ok, break it up, break it up.
Maybe you're both implausible. ;-)

I think the text as written is fine as far as the hacking goes. I think we should bear in mind that he's explaining it to a layman, and that it isn't even clear that he understands it all that well himself; it may be the partner (I will learn their names, promise) who did that side of things, and the speaker was only picking it up from him. If you give him a little leeway on his terminology, it's quite easy to imagine about him using a buffer exploit to slip her a keylogger or worse.

*dreads putting his soft-sci-fi on the web lest Adrian turn his pedantry on that*

I'm with the pedant on the 'sexts' thing, but since you're putting your foot down and saying it'll stay, I'm dropping it now.

Eagerly awaiting the next chapter.

Qe, you've hit the nail on the head. This is all being recounted, which means it's being summarized, often unreliably. Dalent's not trying to dazzle Fielding with his technical savvy, he's just telling her generally what happened. The hows and wheretofores are therefore somewhat blurred. I could make the Doctor a pedant and have her say what about this and what about that, but I see her as more of a listener.

The thing with the sexts is, two things will happen when someone reads that: They'll say: "Huh. They mispelled texts. Ho hum." and there's very little harm done. OR they'll say: "Hey! Sexts! I know what those are. Neat." Homogenising everything so that it's culturally neutral would make everything really bland.

All I'm saying is if I was watching this as a movie, and it does feel very movie like, I would be moaning to my friends about how unrealistic the hacking is. That's all I'm saying.

Maybe you should give clearer guidlines on what you want in the way of feedback.

No, this is all extremely useful. Nitpick away. Every piece of feedback will be incorporated into the second draft, in some fashion or another.

Are you honestly telling me that if you were watching a movie and some character said: "Yeah, we hacked into her computer." but didn't show them actually doing it, you'd start moaning?

Okay, so YOU would start moaning, but for Christ's sake, you didn't moan when Mr. Universe was able to hack into the security cameras of that bar in 'Serenity'. It's just assumed that he had the ability to do it (from another planet, no less). If he'd spent ten minutes describing how he'd rerouted the mainframe combobulater from the reverse descriptonator in order to rejack the Heisenberg compensators, you'd start moaning about how the movie was getting bogged down in technical detail that was ultimately irrelevant to the story.

Your nitpicking has been useful- during this debate, I've realized that at the start of the paragraph in question, he says: "You've got your electronic invasion..." as thought he is later going to detail some OTHER kind of invasion, which he never does. This will be in the second draft and will hopefully answer some of your questions. You are definitely contributing. In your own inimitable way, no less.

I'd never heard the term 'sexts' and it kinda made me chuckle. I thought Dalent was making a joke that he thought might amuse the Doctor.
I think as a first draft (and considering it's being written on the fly!) we should cut any technical detail some slack.

Serenity was set in the future, harder for me to nitpick. This is set 2005, I know the tech. I know the assumptions, and simply installing XP SP2 would make it harder to hack in. I nitpick because you give enough information to me to query but not enough for me to think what's being described is within a realm of acceptable plausibilty.

...or not.

you mean implausible, not unplausible!!!

Then clearly, she didn't install SP2. But I didn't want to mention her not installing SP2 specifically, because that might date the novel to a specific time period.

Oh and Sarah? Shoney's!

I'm really enjoying this, and it seems mean-spirited to criticise, but also feel I should say something useful...no tenements in Essex. It's not really a word we use. Housing estates maybe.

Hey Annie, don't feel afraid to criticize! It's all extremely useful. Plus that suggestion gives me an extra word, tee hee! Now fixed.

Daily Links

Twitter

    Follow me at twitter

    Flickr

    Blogroll

    Pages

    Geek Engine

    sevitzdotcom logoThis is a sevitzdotnet production ©. Template slicing, pain, suffering, and development by Adrian Sevitz. Tech. support and maintance done with love and for some change found down the back of the sofa.
    Powered by Movable Type 4.21-en

    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Danzor published on November 4, 2005 8:40 AM.

    The Trusted Professions - Chapter 3 was the previous entry in this blog.

    The Trusted Professions - Chapter 5 is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.