---
title: Corporate Espionage and the Counter-Surveillance Spending Gap
description: Beling CEO Damir First says firms spend billions on cybersecurity and little on counter-surveillance, leaving boardrooms exposed to listening devices.
author: Darie Nani (Editor-in-Chief)
date: 2026-06-03T12:03:57.045Z
updated: 2026-06-03T12:03:57.081Z
canonical: https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/corporate-espionage-counter-surveillance-gap
image: https://cdn.nanimediahouse.com/damir-first-meff-congress.webp
categories: Business, Leadership
content_type: Spotlight
region: Rome
publication: Sovereign Magazine
about:
  - type: Person
    name: Damir First
    description: Chief executive and co-owner of Beling d.o.o., the Croatian company that trades as SpyShopEurope. He has more than 15 years in counter-surveillance and advises EU government agencies and corporate security teams on TSCM sweeps and surveillance countermeasures.
    jobTitle: CEO
    worksFor: Beling
    sameAs:
      - https://www.linkedin.com/in/damir-first-spyshopeurope
---

Damir First, chief executive of the Croatian counter-surveillance firm Beling, used a speech at the second MEFF International Congress in Rome in May to argue that companies spend heavily protecting their computer networks and very little protecting the rooms where they discuss sensitive business. Beling trades as SpyShopEurope and supplies detection equipment to more than 20 government agencies in the European Union.

First's point is that corporate security has in practice become information security. Spending, staff and management attention go to protecting data. The physical settings where that data is discussed, such as meeting rooms, hotel suites and cars, get far less scrutiny. On stage, he set cybersecurity, which protects data, against counter-surveillance, which protects the spaces and conversations around it.

## The 230-to-1 gap between cybersecurity and counter-surveillance

First framed the problem as a spending ratio. Global cybersecurity spending runs at about €229 billion a year, broadly in line with analyst estimates for the information-security market. He put spending on counter-surveillance, the work of detecting and removing covert listening devices, hidden cameras and tracking hardware, at about €1 billion. The figures are his own, and the counter-surveillance market is defined loosely enough that estimates vary widely. The exact ratio is open to question, but the broad point is not: cybersecurity budgets are far larger than counter-surveillance budgets.

"That 230-to-1 ratio does not reflect the reality of the threat," First told the congress. "It reflects how little awareness has been built outside government."

His argument is that the obstacle is not technology. The equipment to sweep a room for surveillance devices is commercially available, and is often the same equipment state agencies use. What is missing, in his account, is corporate awareness that the room itself can be a target.

### See More

- [Why Firms Are Treating Cyber Attacks Like Crimes: NewSky Security’s Take on Digital Investigations](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/why-firms-are-treating-cyber-attacks-like-crimes-newsky-security-s-take-on-digital-investigat)
- [Campus Tech Fails: The Security Infrastructure Gap](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/campus-tech-fails-the-security-infrastructure-gap)

## What technical surveillance countermeasures actually involve

Counter-surveillance, or technical surveillance countermeasures (TSCM), covers the equipment and procedures used to find devices that record or transmit without consent. In practice that means radio-frequency detectors that pick up transmissions, spectrum analysers that scan a wide band of frequencies for anomalies, and physical inspection of fixtures, furniture and electronics where a device might be hidden. A professional sweep combines all three, because no single method finds everything.

Beling does not make this hardware. It is a distributor, founded in Rijeka in 1990, acting as a European agent for specialist manufacturers including Research Electronics International, JJN Digital, Digiscan Labs and the Italian firm MEFF, whose congress First was addressing. First argues that the equipment already exists and that demand from the corporate market has not caught up with it.

## Corporate espionage cases that reach the boardroom

First built his case around real incidents, the most clearly documented of which is recent. In March, the Ukrainian drone manufacturer TechEx reported that hidden listening devices had been found in the office of its chief engineer, in an operation attributed to Russian intelligence and aimed at design documents and supply-chain information. The devices captured spoken conversations, which network security does not cover.

He cited other cases in similar terms: a listening device planted at a London hotel that recorded private discussions tied to a sale worth more than £1 billion, a billion-euro telecoms vendor selection conducted under counter-surveillance precautions after executives suspected they were being monitored, and covert cameras installed on a corporate campus by someone with insider access. The details of each differ, and some have been reported in other contexts. "What connects all four cases is the same thing," First said. "Counter-surveillance, or lack of it, made the difference."

## From government agencies to corporate security

Beling's history is in the government and agency market, where sweeping a sensitive space before a meeting is routine. First has spent more than 15 years in the field, and the firm counts EU government bodies and law enforcement among its long-standing customers. He argues that companies should adopt the same practice. Beling says it is developing guides and resources aimed at corporate security teams, and that it keeps current professional-standard equipment in stock, which matters in a field where lead times on specialist hardware can be long.

One caveat is worth stating. The congress was hosted by a hardware manufacturer, MEFF, and Beling sells that manufacturer's equipment, so First's argument that companies underinvest in counter-surveillance is also a sales argument. The underlying claims are checkable: agency-grade detection equipment exists, documented cases of corporate eavesdropping are real, and most corporate security budgets are weighted towards digital threats.

### See More

- [The Business Security Crisis: How Body Camera Technology is Transforming Enterprise Security](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/the-business-security-crisis-how-body-camera-technology-is-transforming-enterprise-security)
- [How To Enhance Your Businesses Safety & Security](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/how-to-enhance-your-businesses-safety-038-security)

## Why companies underspend on counter-surveillance

First's main claim is that the problem requires no new invention. The detection equipment is mature, the procedures are established and the specialists exist. In each example he raised, he argued, the means to prevent the breach already existed and was not used. For corporate security teams, that points to extending an existing practice to a part of the business it has not yet covered, rather than buying new technology.

**About Damir First**
CEO, Beling

Chief executive and co-owner of Beling d.o.o., the Croatian company that trades as SpyShopEurope. He has more than 15 years in counter-surveillance and advises EU government agencies and corporate security teams on TSCM sweeps and surveillance countermeasures.

## FAQ

**Q: What is corporate espionage?**
Corporate espionage is the use of covert methods, including hidden listening devices, cameras and tracking hardware, to obtain a company's confidential information. It targets the physical settings where sensitive business is discussed, not only computer networks.

**Q: What are technical surveillance countermeasures (TSCM)?**
TSCM, or counter-surveillance, is the equipment and procedures used to detect and remove covert surveillance devices. A professional sweep typically combines radio-frequency detection, spectrum analysis and a physical search of a space, because no single method finds every device.

**Q: Are hidden listening devices legal?**
Planting a covert listening device to record private conversations without consent is illegal in most jurisdictions. The devices themselves are widely available, which is why firms such as Beling argue that detection, rather than prohibition, is the practical defence.

**Q: How can a company tell if its offices are bugged?**
The standard method is a professional sweep using radio-frequency detection and spectrum analysis alongside a physical search of fixtures and electronics. Damir First argues that the means to do this is established and available, and that the main barrier is companies not treating the physical room as part of their security.