The level of the technology employed is relative to the investment

The level of the technology employed is relative to the investment.
It is more and more evident that few security companies fully understand the technology involved, how communications operate or are intercepted/manipulated, leaking vital corporate intelligence to competitors.
Some Technical Surveillance Counter Measures (TSCM) firms are so far behind that the advice that they pass on to their clients is often futile. With budgets in the tens of thousands of pounds, a telephone can be intercepted miles away from the target location and monitored from the other side of the world, live. Each call is time and date stamped, in turn recorded on a computer for later evaluation.
The fact of the matter is, in some cases a TSCM sweep is of no use when technical surveillance can be so remote. Better understanding is needed, both of the modus operandi and of the latest technology. Few TSCM firms understand just how far an espionage budget of ￡20k can go.
TSCM sweeps as part of a security housekeeping policy do make sense if carried out to include computer systems, rooms and telephone lines to local exchange level. It is true to say that the basic technical principles of espionage technique have not changed too much over the past twenty years since the end of the cold war. However the movement in technology and with the vast use of communications spanning the world has lead the public into a false sense of security and apathy when employing these communication techniques.
Any type of electronic communication can be intercepted at one level or another; the role of the TSCM firms should be best utilised identifying the areas of weakness and employing measures to combat these possible areas of weakness.
Many large companies fall foul of size and general lack of in-house security policies, making espionage far easier and easier still with inside information.
The placement of bugging devices in offices or boardrooms is not always the first option for espionage; often the logistical problems involved in a live covert device far outweigh the benefits.