[Ads-l] burner account

[Dan Goncharoff]

As I read it, I realized I could read "unregistered burner phone"
differently.

I had thought of a "burner phone" in the context of criminal activity. (I
finally binge-watched The Wire this year.)

Now I was open to the concept of a "registered burner phone", one known to
and perhaps given by the employer, distinct from an "unregistered burner
phone" one hides from the employer.

DanG

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Barretts Mail <mail.barretts at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is a great find. The term “burner phone” appears in quotes only in
> the article title and isn’t explained anywhere in the WSJ article, though
> the context gives a vague idea of the meaning.
>
> The article also quotes a form that says “prepaid phones, pay as you go,
> burner, etc.”, making fine distinctions, though surely “burner” is in a
> different sort of category from prepaid/pay-as-you-go phones.
>
> BB
>
> > On 20 Sep 2017, at 09:15, Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > This seems a pertinent article from today's news:
> >
> > ‘Burner Phone’ Accusation Marks New Chapter in Ole Miss Scandal
> > https://www.wsj.com/articles/burner-phone-accusation-marks-
> new-chapter-in-ole-miss-scandal-1505832124
> >
> > The article distinguishes between a "university-issued phone" and an
> > "unreported burner phone"
> >
> > Also, this:
> >
> > "The new accusations began when Mars notified the school in July that he
> > had evidence about alleged misuse of burner phones in recruiting. He
> > alleged that coaches purchased phones with cash, sometimes at out of
> state
> > locations or using fictitious names, that they used to conceal
> > “communications with prospects that were prohibited by the NCAA’s rules.”
> >
> > In some instances, Mars wrote, third parties bought the burners and then
> > gave them to coaches. It also alleges the coaches instructed recruits not
> > to put their names with these numbers in the contacts sections of their
> > phone."
> >
> > DanG
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Chris Waigl <chris at lascribe.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It strikes me that one similarity between the burner phone and the
> burner
> >>> device is the inability to connect the phone or device to the user.
> >>> ​
> >>>
> >>
> >> ​No, this is not the usage I know. The burner phones/devices that are
> >> issued by companies to their employees are perfectly connected to both
> the
> >> company and the employee. They just don't have any confidential
> information
> >> on them, and the employee has their "real" phone/device elsewhere in a
> safe
> >> place, so if the burner device/phone gets confiscated, nothing of value
> is
> >> lost.
> >>
> >> Chris​
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org