I'm very interested in learning how "calls from public phones at the airport may be monitored, as well as cell phones" got into this story.
I just got off the phone with AP reporter Leslie Miller at the DC bureau, (212)776-9400 who told me emphatically that she never put that in her story.
Can anyone explain how this got into the story and on this list? Such random public and cell phone monitoring without probable cause would be unconstitutional, but then, so is much of what's going on today in the name of "national security".
-ed cummings
At 01:25 AM 8/11/06, snipped-for-privacy@telecom-digest.org wrote:[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your question got me to thinking and I looked into the wire service report a little further. It appears there were _two_ wire service reports, about a minute apart. (That sometimes happens, which is why the 'News Today' feature which I offer at
> TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:28:00 EDT Volume 25 : Issue 295
> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:53:50 -0500
> From: Leslie Miller, Associated Press
> Subject: Passengers May Expect Double/Triple Screening
> Passengers can Expect Double/Triple Screening, Pay and Cell Phone Monitoring
> By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer
> Beginning Friday...snip...In addition, calls from public phones at
> the airport may be monitored, as well as cell phones ... snip ...
formatting link
sometimes prints the same story two or three times in a row.) The first version of the airport security story was attributed to 'newswire' (rather than a specific reporter's name) contained the remarks about 'payphone and cell phone monitoring'; the second version a minute or less later was attributed to Leslie Miller and did not make those statements, and was a bit different in other respects as well, such as length of the article, etc. My error was using the first account which came but attributing it to Ms. Miller (the second acount). As you pointed out, so much of what is happening in the name of 'national security' is very questioable from a constitutional point of view, my attitude was 'well, why wouldn't they do that as well?' Apparently, Associated Press had more than just one person working on the story and neglected to reconcile or otherwise piece together their accounts. Of course, I should have more carefully identified (as best I could given limited resources) who wrote what. I still maintain however that it would be foolish to think that a telephone call at the airport would of necessity be untouchable or private. PAT]