ARCHIVE

Archive for the ‘Audio Forensic Expert’ Category

Warren Michigan Mayor Jim Fouts Voice identification test positive

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016

Last week I received a phone call from Guy Gordon, a WDIV TVR NBC affiliate here in Detroit, Michigan. He came to the Primeau Forensics office, bringing with him a recording of an unknown voice making certain remarks. Mr. Gordon asked us to perform a voice identification analysis on the recording. The assignment was to determine if Warren Mayor Jim Fouts was the voice speaking in this recording.

Mr. Gordon also brought some recordings with known samples of Mayor Jim Fouts speaking, which I compared with the unknown recording. I performed two forms of voice identification testing (also known as speaker recognition) with a second audio forensic expert employed with Primeau Forensics. We performed both aural spectral voice ID as well as biometric voice identification testing. After analyzing the results of the testing, we concluded that the voices were a ‘probable match’. The biometric software came back with a high probability of a match between the voices across the majority of the tests. The aural spectral method also showed high consistencies between the voices with very little difference in their pitch. I was asked to interpret the results in percentage of probability and I reported an 80% chance that the unknown voice in the recording was that of Mayor Jim Fouts.

During a voice identification analysis, it is important that I stay unbiased and focus on the science of the investigation. I have no stake in the outcome of the testing and I make sure that anything I report is based on my data and analysis. This ensures that any other expert could perform the same tests and provide the same results.

It’s important to note that the test I performed would be considered a preliminary or ‘Emergency Voice Identification Test.’ The reason I call it an ‘Emergency’ test is because an immediate analysis was required and we therefore had to use any available sample of the suspected person’s voice to perform the comparison. In an ideal voice identification analysis, we would create what is called an exact exemplar. This is a recording of the suspected person reading the same dialogue as spoken in the unknown recording. In this test, we used both an in-person interview with Mayor Jim Fouts, as well as a radio interview found online. For the purposes of this test, we were able to obtain accurate voice information from the found samples. Creating an exact exemplar would lend further credibility to the analysis and results.

In many cases, an Emergency Voice Identification Test is the best option after the event in question occurs. Sometimes the suspected party is not willing to create an exact exemplar, and in some cases the client does not want to alert the suspected party of the testing until some results have been found. Threatening calls are especially difficult to deal with, as alerting the suspected person prior to any conclusive results can be dangerous. Providing these initial results can provide the company or client the support they need to take the proper steps forward.

In this case, the emergency voice identification test was the fastest way to get results so that other city officials could move forward. We performed all the available testing to compare the voice directly with known samples. My conclusions were based on the data and results that were calculated from the voice samples. By basing my conclusions on the data, I avoid as much bias as possible so that the results are objective. High consistencies were observed between the unknown evidence recording in question and the two sample recordings we had available. The pitch comparison, formant comparison, and biometric comparison all showed the same results which led me to my conclusion of Mayor Jim Fouts being a probable match to the voice in question.

Share

1991 Donald Trump Masqueraded as Publicist-The Voice Is NOT Donald Trump

Friday, May 13th, 2016

known_v_unknown

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are just tuning in, the lead story from Washington Post this morning is regarding a recording that was thought to be Donald Trump. Trump denied the recording was his voice. Primeau Forensics was asked by the media to perform a forensic voice identification test to determine if the unknown voice in the Washington Post story features the voice of Donald Trump.
Primeau Forensics located a C-Span interview from 1991 titled ‘Donald Trump on Economic Recovery’. We chose this recording as the ‘known’ Donald Trump voice for forensic comparison. We chose this older voice sample because it was closer in time to the ‘unknown’ recording.
The biometric software program that we used is a Speech Pro Product titled ‘SIS 2’. We formatted each speech sample based on training received from Owen Forensic Services and loaded them into the biometric software. The result was a 98% mismatch meaning the ‘unknown’ voice recording that surfaced in the Washington Post today is NOT the voice of Donald Trump.
The image below is a screen shot of ‘SIS 2’ with the test results highlighted.

 

Share

Authentication of Digital Audio Recordings

Tuesday, November 11th, 2014

digital audio recordingsOne of our day to day activities as audio forensic experts is authenticating digital audio evidence. When one of the parties in a litigation believes that an audio recording was tampered with or edited, an audio forensic expert is brought in to investigate the recording. When we authenticate an audio recording, the first step is to establish chain of custody. While it is the first step, chain of custody does not, in and of itself, establish a recording as being authentic. I have seen audio evidence that was not authentic and was stored in a digital audio recorder. So why is audio authentication so important? What should an audio forensic expert be aware of when examining audio evidence? What is the process of examining and authenticating audio evidence? I am going to answer these questions and more in the following post.

A majority of audio recordings we are hired to authenticate are created on digital audio recorders or smartphones using a recording app. These devices are easily concealed in a pocket or purse. They come in many shapes and sizes. They record various formats. One of the first steps an audio forensic expert must take when authenticating a digital audio recording is to become familiar with the equipment that created the recording

Importance of Authentication

The authentication process determines whether or not the audio recording in question has been tampered with. In this age of digital audio, edits can be made and covered up very easily. There are free versions of audio editing software – such as Audacity – which are available on line and can make edits that alter the events or conversation that originally occurred in digital audio recordings.

In the last 30 days, of all the audio authentication cases I was assigned, I found two had been edited. Both of the recordings were downloaded to a computer, edited, then played back and re-recorded through desktop computer speakers using a digital audio recorder. Most of the time, if an audio recording is edited after downloading to a computer and before authoring a CD, the editing can be detected in the digital recordings meta data. During the forensic authentication process, the software that created the edits will be detected in the HEX information of that edited recording.

If audio evidence is found to be altered, it should be ruled inadmissible in court because it is not an accurate representation of the events that occurred.

So what should the audio forensic expert be aware of during the authentication process?

First, establish and determine the chain of custody. If the expert is able to retrieve the evidence from the original source, in most cases that will automatically create and establish an authentic chain of custody. Or, provide clues of tampering if the recording was edited and re recorded. If it’s not possible for the forensic expert to retrieve the recording, then the forensic expert must carefully go through all of the documents and reports that arrived with the evidence. Sometimes a chain of custody log from law enforcement will be included, which will strengthen the authenticity of the audio evidence. But if the chain of custody cannot be established, the forensic examiner must rely on other techniques as well as their own expertise to determine the authenticity of the evidence. If further investigation reveals more inconsistencies in the recording and metadata, more often than not that recording is determined to be altered.

Digital audio recorders aren’t the only equipment that record audio evidence. CCTV surveillance systems, as well as most other digital video recorders, will include both audio and video in the recordings. As an Audio and Video Forensic Expert, I often work with both the video and audio from these recordings. When I receive digital media evidence that includes sight and sound, I analyze both audio and video using separate forensic processes. I have come across cases in which the video was unedited but the audio had been tampered with. In this case, I was unable to authenticate the evidence because a chain of custody could not be established. Plus, there were anomalies in the audio that could be measured, heard and documented.

Process of Examining and Authenticating Audio Evidence: Critical Listening

One of the first steps that I take when audio evidence arrives at our lab, I listen critically to the entire recording a number of times. During this process I note unusual sounding sections in the recording which are called anomalies. I take notes and place markers using the forensic software so that I can find them later and include them in my forensic report.

These unusual sounding sections can be changes in the background ambience, inconsistent speech pacing and wording as well as changes in the noise floor. The noise floor is a series of natural and electronic sounds that should be consistent throughout the recording. Noise is defined as any sound source signals like hiss, hums, wind, HVAC and other sounds that are not part of the intended recording.

Critical listening must be the first step to become familiar with the audio evidence. If an edit is discovered during the critical listening phase, they are usually in the form of abrupt changes. Detecting these changes is not easy and comes with experience.

It’s important for the forensic expert to put themselves in a quiet, isolated room during critical listening so as to avoid any outside disturbances. The quiet environment enhances the critical listening focus. High quality, professional grade monitoring headphones and high quality studio monitors (speakers) are best for critical listening analysis of digital audio recordings. Professional quality headphones and speakers will have the flattest frequency response, which means they produce neutral and natural sound. This is very important for the forensic expert because subtle boosts and cuts in frequencies can impact the analysis of the digital audio recording.

Sometimes frequencies may be more audible in headphones and sound clearer to the forensic expert while other frequencies may be better heard through speakers. When the forensic expert is examining audio evidence for authentication, it is important to use both headphones and speakers to hear every aspect of the recording.

In some audio evidence I have examined, I have been able to hear a second noise floor in the recording. This usually occurs when a recording is played through speakers or an auxiliary cable into another recorder. The original noise floor from the recording is heard along with the second noise floor created from the second recording.

Electronic Measurement

After critical listening, the forensic expert must use electronic measurement to examine the audio evidence. This is done by noting the prominent frequencies in the voices or other sound source and the noise floor. The levels of the recording and of the different frequencies can be measured as well. Tools such as spectrograms, frequency analysis windows and level meters are very helpful for observing and collecting this information. The expert should note the frequency range of the overall recording, the voices or conversation and the noise floor or extraneous sounds in the recording.

If the frequency range of a voice suddenly becomes larger or smaller or shifts in frequency range, that can be a sign of an edit. Sudden, unexplained changes in the noise floor level as well as the sudden presence of another background noise can also be a sign of an edit. As I mentioned before, I have come across recordings in which I could hear two noise floors. This can often be measured and seen in a spectrogram and a frequency analysis panel.

Visual Inspection

Visually inspecting the audio wave form and spectrogram is the next step in authenticating the audio. This goes hand in hand with the electronic measurement as the forensic expert analyzes the physical wave properties and frequency information. Waveforms are continuous and smooth when examined very closely. Even a quick, loud sound like a clap will have a smooth, continuous wave. If there are sudden breaks in the waveform of a recording, these are signs of editing. The expert should also pay close attention to the phasing of the waveform. This can also been seen when visually zooming in to the waveform. If the waveform of the recording is suddenly inverted, this can also mean an edit was made.

The spectrogram will show the full frequency spectrum with warmer or colder colors representing the strength of that frequency. The noise floor can be seen very clearly in this view, helping to identify breaks in the sound. All recordings have some noise floor, even if they are almost inaudible. When viewing the spectrogram, any breaks in the noise floor may be signs of an edit. Changes in the volume of the noise floor can also be a sign of an edit.

Analyzing Metadata in Digital Audio Evidence

When I first began working as an Audio Forensic Expert, most of my work was with analog audio evidence in the form of mini, micro and standard audio cassettes. I did have some cases where reel to reel tape was used. Today almost all recordings are done digitally, there is additional information that can be analyzed when performing an audio authentication. Digital audio recordings contain metadata which reveals information about how the recording was made and the type of equipment that created the recording. If a recording was loaded into a software program capable of performing edits, there will often be a footprint left in the recording HEX information showing what software was used.

When examining the digital information, it is necessary to create an exemplar recording to compare the metadata with the original. An exemplar is a recording that is made in conditions that are as close to the original recording as possible . The exemplar is made on the same kind of audio recorder and, if possible, the same environment. Using this exemplar, the forensic expert can compare the metadata and HEX information of the two files. If there are inconsistencies in the data, that can also be a sign of tampering.

For a forensic expert to authenticate a piece of audio evidence, the expert must prove beyond any doubt that the recording is in its original form and has not undergone any tampering. If a piece of evidence is not authentic, it should not be used in court because it may be incomplete or altered to purport events that did not occur.

Hopefully this post helped inform you about the authentication of digital audio recordings. If you have any questions, email us at primeauforensics@gmail.com, or give us a call at 800-647-4291.

Share

Audio Enhancement – A Forensic Approach

Friday, April 25th, 2014

audio enhancementThere are two ways to look at audio enhancement, from a recreation standpoint and a business/legal standpoint. Most people searching for audio enhancement are looking for a solution to better hear a poorly recorded audio conversation. The audio recording may or may not be a very important piece of audio evidence.

The term “audio enhancement” can be used for a couple of different situations. First, with regard to ‘enhancing’ the quality of the listening experience – let’s call this ‘passive’ audio enhancement, since the goal is simply to enjoy a recording in the best possible environment. I am an audiophile; I love great sound when I listen to music. In that regard, audio enhancement is the activity of choosing the right equipment, careful placement of the speakers, careful placement of the furniture and taking your time gently balancing the equalization and stereo imaging.

Audio enhancement also helps a sound projection situation in sounding the best it possibly can. These situations can include a church service, professional speaker seminar, live concert, symphony or even a drive in theater. Yes, I believe drive in theaters will make a comeback.

In this situation, audio enhancement involves choosing the right speakers, then identifying the perfect placement for them with regard to sound source and audio ratio to audience. Live sound audio enhancement also involves activity as outlined in the previous example, like balancing the equalization and stereo imagery.

Audio enhancement for forensic applications, also known as forensic audio enhancement, also has similar activity as outlined in the previous samples – we’ll call this ‘active’ audio enhancement, since we are actively manipulating the quality of the recording itself in order to clarify what is being said. This activity requires a much more sanitary environment. An audio forensic lab is acoustically tuned and well stocked with the finest hardware and mind boggling software. This software is used in a specific order that is defined by each individual enhancement situation or court case.  With regard to audio enhancement for forensic applications, it is the skill of the audio forensic expert that makes or breaks audio enhancement success.

After 30 years of enhancing audio forensically, we are often asked by clients why our success rate is so high. I tell them that we began their enhancement process by analyzing the various reasons why their audio recording was so poor. Was it because background noise was louder than the desired conversation? In this case our goal is to clarify a recorded conversation. The audio forensic expert then determines whether to remove background noise first or boost the overall volume. With some cases the audio expert may apply other filters first like equalization, compression or re-sampling in order to better hear the words spoken.

There are free software programs available that do a pretty good job enhancing recorded conversations. Primeau Forensics recommends an audio software program called ‘Audacity.’  Audacity has equalization, format conversion and some similar processes and filters that other professional software programs have that we use at Primeau Forensics, like Adobe Audition. This is one approach if funds are low.

The problem then becomes maintaining a chain of custody. If your recordings are to be used in court, establishing a chain of custody is extremely important. It does not look good to the other side when you use a software program yourself. This is why most people in need of audio enhancement seek assistance with a company like Primeau Forensics.  Not only do we enhance audio and establish a chain of custody, we also create a forensic transcript when necessary that is signed and certified by an audio forensic expert. This forensic transcript is then used with the enhanced audio evidence to create a packaged piece of evidence that is more powerful than the enhanced audio alone.

We have experienced situations where the playback systems in court, as well as the reverberant acoustics, make it difficult to hear the enhanced audio recording. When the enhanced audio recorded evidence is accompanied with a certified forensic transcript, the judge and jury can read along with the transcript. It allows the court to better hear the enhanced recording.

Share

Mayor Rob Ford Toronto Voice Identification

Wednesday, December 11th, 2013

Back at the end of October, I was contacted by Nicole Bogart from the Global News in Toronto who asked that I conduct a voice identification between known samples of Mayor Rob Ford and a male caller to a radio show named Ian. They believed that the caller who was defending the mayor was not a person named Ian but rather Rob Ford himself.

In the video below, I explain my process and play samples of the audio’s that were used to compare and arrive at my conclusion.

To read the full Globe story, click HEREhttp://globalnews.ca/news/950387/forensic-audio-experts-mixed-on-whether-ian-from-etobicoke-caller-was-rob-ford/

 

For more on Voice Identification, check out Ed Primeau’s latest book, “That’s Not My Voice!” available on Amazon.
Share

JFK Assassination: Fully restored Air Force One recordings from November 22, 1963

Tuesday, November 19th, 2013

John F Kennedy At the end of this blog post is a fully restored digital audio file available for listening and downloading of the government conversation that occurred at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The Announcer at the beginning of the recording  is the poorest quality of the entire 2:01:59.

This is a combination merged from two copies that were in existence. The first copy was released by the government and referred to as the ‘LBJ tapes’ in the early 1970’s. Another longer copy surfaced in a Philadelphia private auction in 2011. This longer copy was found in the belongings of the late General Clifton. Thanks to Bill Kelly, a veteran JFK researcher, Primeau Forensics has combined the contents of both recordings and fully restored them.

In this enhanced recording, you will hear conversations from Air Force One over the Pacific Ocean as they abort a trip to Japan and turn around, mid-air, to return to the mainland after learning about the assassination of the President of the United States. These recorded conversations between Ground Command, the White House and Air Force One include code names such as ‘Duplex,’ ‘Digest,’ ‘Volunteer,’ ‘Liberty,’ ‘Witness,’ ‘Crown,’ ‘Baker,’ ‘Watchman,’ and ‘Tiger.’

During the call they make arrangements to transport John F. Kennedy’s body, his widow, President Johnson and the other 40 people safely back to Washington DC. The carefully coordinated and strategically executed planning is heard in this recording. Decisions about media coordination on the ground at the White House, the post-mortem autopsy to be performed by law and President Johnson’s conversation with JFK’s mother, Rose Kennedy can also be heard.

It may take a while to get your ears acclimated to this early, mobile technology. Primeau Forensics has carefully removed unnecessary radio static and squeals to accommodate better listening. It is recommended that you use a combination of speakers and headphones to best listen to these recordings.

Listen to the updated Clarified Audio Track HERE:

[audio:http://www.primeauproductions.org/primeauforensics/JFK Airforce One Primeau Forensics .mp3|titles=JFK AIR FORCE 1 CLARIFIED AUDIO UPDATE]

Download Recordings Here!

Download Transcript Here!

Share

Air Force One Audio Restoration/Enhancement Process

Friday, November 15th, 2013

Air Force OneA lot of people have been asking how I restored the Air Force One radio transmissions from November 22 1963, right after JFK was shot. Below I have outlined my process with brief explanations about each.

I used a software program from Adobe CS 6 ‘Audition’ for this entire process.

I identified the points in each version of the tape recordings, the LBJ version and the General Clifton version, for edit points before altering the recordings for enhancement.

I began the restoration process by sampling the tape hiss present on the entire recording and reducing with Adobe noise reduction. Next I went section by section and reduced the radio transmission noise which varied from conversation to conversation.

Then I applied equalization and compression filtering to help bring out the conversations. This was also done section by section since each conversation varied in speaking frequencies.  Adobe CS6 has a great tool, the FFT equalization which is very easy to use.

Audio restoration and enhancement is a process. I refer to it as peeling an onion; one layer at a time. If something does not sound right, I go back a step and try a different process. That’s the beauty of digital audio restoration and enhancement.

I am still working on the restoration as time permits and will update the videos posted here. I am hearing more and more of the conversations using critical listening and additional enhancement. Considering how primitive the technology was back then I am very impressed with the sound quality of these recordings. By the way, the General Clifton version is much better sounding and longer then the LBJ version.

Read about how this all started, and you can watch the story on “The Lead” with Jake Tapper on CNN below.

Share

Primeau Forensics Restored Air Force One Recordings from John F. Kennedy Assassination

Tuesday, October 8th, 2013




Passing the Torch-An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy will be happening October 17-19 2013 in Pittsburgh. http://www.duq.edu/events/jfk

A while back, Bill Kelly contacted Primeau Forensics and asked Audio Forensic Expert Ed Primeau to assemble and restore the original Air Force One radio transmissions that were recorded the day JFK was assassinated 50 years ago.

According to Primeau, ‘the quality of technology back then was very poor which weighs heavy on understanding the dialogue of the radio transmissions even after restoration’. Then Primeau had an idea, to have Partner Company Primeau Productions create a video which displays the wording on the bottom of the screen displaying the dialogue from the radio transmissions as they occurred.

Primeau sought some authentic footage from a private jet cockpit via a pilot who is a friend of Primeau Productions so the background footage adds an interesting background to the closed caption type text.

For more information on the conference contact:

Deborah G. Jozwiak

320 Fisher Hall
600 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15282
Email: wechtinstitute@duq.edu
Phone: 412-396-1330
Fax: 412-396-1331

Share

Voice Identification and Critical Listening

Wednesday, September 18th, 2013

critical listening Imagine for a moment that you’re sitting at home after a long day at work, enjoying some time in your living room, watching TV or the like.  All of a sudden, you hear the door open behind you.  You sit and wonder who could have walked in, until the anonymous person speaks.  The second you hear their voice, you recognize and register immediately who has entered the room. The same scenario can happen all day at work as well. You learn to recognize your co-workers voices after hearing them all day for several months, even years.

As these examples show, we recognize and interpret characteristics of voices very quickly. Why is this? Vocal characteristics are very distinct amongst all people regardless of race, gender, or ethnic background. If you spend a decent amount of time around someone, you become used to the vocal characteristics they express and can immediately correlate those characteristics with the identity of who is speaking to you.

Vocal Identification in audio forensics relies on the ability to recognize these characteristics in any unknown human voice. In the examples above, the repetition of exposure to those vocal characteristics make you respond without even thinking twice about who could be behind you.  The difference in regards to audio forensics is that a forensic expert doesn’t always know anything about the voice in question. This requires the forensic expert to rely on their ‘critical listening skills.’

So, how is this done? What specific characteristics are forensic experts actually looking for?  They look for the types of speaking characteristics that could be relevant and specific in identifying a person’s voice.  Everyone has very distinct features to their voices, regardless of how slight or severe they might be.  When compiling information for voice identification, the forensic expert must listen over and over to the unknown voice with pen and paper taking scrupulous notes of all speech characteristics. They focus specifically on things such as inflection, pronunciation of certain words, any form of an accent, stutters and lisps, amongst other variables. Make careful and precise notes about all of these variables.  They try to be as SPECIFIC as possible.  The forensic expert will then create a voice profile for this person.

If by chance the forensic expert has access to the suspect thought to be the unknown voice, this puts them at more of an advantage.  The goal then is to create an exemplar of that person saying the same message in question with the same delivery heard in the recording. This is called an ‘exact exemplar.’ They will review and compare notes from both the original recording and the exemplar itself. An exemplar gives you a more neutral quality, and isn’t biased by background noise, feedback, or any other external features that may have affected the original recording.

By understanding the critical listening phase of voice identification, you will better understand the value and importance of voice identification as a tool for the audio forensic examiner and audio forensic expert.

For more on Voice Identification, check out Ed Primeau’s latest book, “That’s Not My Voice!” available on Amazon.

Share

Eavesdropping: Is It Worth The Risk?

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

eavesdroppingYou’re having problems at home.  Your spouse has been acting very suspicious recently. You can’t help but think that your significant other is having an affair, but lack of communication with that person makes it impossible to find out the truth.  In a desperate attempt to find out what’s really going on when you’re not around, you decide to set up audio recorders all throughout your house to use for possible audio evidence against your spouse.

This is a practice we see every so often at Primeau Forensics. We’ve received a handful of cases in which a third party requests an analysis of audio taken from digital surveillance of a private conversation. What these people don’t realize is that these actions are against Michigan’s eavesdropping/surveillance laws (laws vary from state to state). The consequences of eavesdropping on a private conversation are dire, and can lead to not only a considerable fine, but also possible jail-time.  Before we dig deeper into this subject, we must ask the question: What exactly constitutes “eavesdropping?”

The surveillance and eavesdropping statutes are determined at a state level. Some states enforce what’s known as “one party consent.” Basically, as long as one side of the private discourse agrees to surveillance of the conversation, the action is legal.  Here is a guide of which states enforce one party consent and which states enforce two party consent.

According to Michigan State Law, eavesdropping is defined as “to overhear, record, amplify, or transmit any part of a private discourse of others without the permission of all people involved in the discourse.” In other words, the person doing the eavesdropping must have consent from both parties to record the private conversation.  This is what’s known as “two party consent.”

You might be thinking, “But this is my home! I have the right to dictate privacy in my own home!” This is also not true.  Michigan State law defines a “private place” as “a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access.”  This includes an empty home. As long as the location is not somewhere the public can easily get to, it’s considered a private place.  So yes, it is even illegal to eavesdrop in your own home.

In the state of Michigan, eavesdropping is considered a felony.  The potential  consequences of these actions include imprisonment in a state penitentiary for up to 2 years, a fine of up to $2,000, or any combination of both.  Obviously, this does not include the potential fines you’d face if the violated parties request a civil case.

In case the purpose of the blogpost hasn’t become clear by now, the point is that eavesdropping is very illegal, and the consequences are very serious.  Even if you do find some juicy inside secrets, Michigan law also states that “using or divulging any information which you know or reasonably should know was obtained in violation of the wiretapping laws” is strictly prohibited.  So if you suspect something is going on at home, the risks involved with eavesdropping just aren’t worth it.  Healthy communication with your spouse is a much safer option when issues at home arise.

photo credit: Eavesdropping ( Hello Hello anyone there ) via photopin (license)

Share