Responding to the commentary «The Unsaid Truths about Tapping» by Stamos Zoulas (February 7), I agree with the observation that most people view their mobile phone discussions as far from secure but nevertheless tolerate this as it is highly unlikely that they would attract the attention of someone both willing and able to invest the resources required to attain what would probably be a meager payoff. The same is not true for the prime minister nor most of the Cabinet. What these individuals have to say may be the least of the concerns of the offenders. Presumably those able to trace the calls were also able to determine the location of those individuals (including the prime minister) 24 hours a day. This leads to a whole new range of possibilities one can only guess at, the most striking of which is that senior public figures were exposed to unacceptable levels of risk in terms of their personal safety. If you believe that the reaction of the Greek community is exaggerated then I can only ask what the reaction would be in the USA if they were to discover that President Bush’s mobile phone had been tapped for any extended period of time. STEVE NIKOLAOU, Brisbane, Australia. I am fascinated at the torrents of ink which have one target and one target only: The USA and maybe the UK. The fact is that all wireless conversations around the world are intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA). Therefore the logical conclusion is that all wireless (cell) phones that were involved in the Vodafone scandal were routinely monitored by the NSA. Given this rather undisputed fact, can somebody please explain to me why the USA would bother tapping these phones? Since the NSA already does it, what would be the incremental benefit? To me, the total lack of involvement by the USA and probably the UK is so obvious that I have to ask myself what is the ulterior motive of those who constantly point their finger at them. GEORGE PAPAGEORGIOU, via e-mail.