one-to-many messaging

[Roland Perry]

In article <Gw6NkdQ9qNBIFwAP@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather 
<clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes

>>Everyone other than sender and intended recipient are third parties.
>
>I'm not convinced that includes the ISP themselves.

It's complicated because sometimes the ISP is itself the "intended 
recipient" - very obviously so for Usenet reading, not quite so 
obviously for Usenet posting [the one-to-many in the title] and mail 
relaying. And finally, maybe even for browsing, if the ISP is known to 
be providing a proxy (or a phishing filter).

I expect some of this to be a bit controversial on this list :)

>If I'm the one doing the certain things, does this wording include the 
>case of making the contents available to myself? To me, the natural 
>interpretation of the words would exclude myself, but I'm not going to 
>swear that hasn't been case law (in respect of some other act) that has 
>interpreted this wording one way or the other.

So if you climbed up a telegraph pole and attached some crock-clips, and 
made a passing phone call available to yourself, you seriously suggest 
it's not interception?

-- 
Roland Perry