Starmer dumps doormat?
pwt at iosis.co.uk
Sat Jan 15 17:48:46 GMT 2011
From: Wendy M. Grossman [mailto:wendyg at pelicancrossing.net]
> Sent: 15 January 2011 15:52
> To: cb at qualia.co.uk; UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
> Cc: Caspar Bowden (travelling private e-mail)
> Subject: Re: Starmer dumps doormat?
> Why should whether you've heard the messages or not make any difference?
Following up the doormat analogy, my physical doormat is inside my front
door, so anyone who reaches through the letterbox and picks up a letter
and opens the envelope but without taking the envelope and contents out
through the letterbox is, I believe, doing something illegal. If they
just take the letter away in its envelope and don't open it, I'm sure
that they are doing something illegal. And if I open the letter and
leave the contents on the doormat and someone reaches in with a camera
and reads the letter, they are invading my privacy, but is that illegal?
The argument seems to have been that listening to a voicemail message
which is stored in the phone system AND has been listened to by the
recipient is not illegal - thus it further seems that we service users
are in a civil law situation where my disagreement is with the service
provider for not keeping the messages secure until deleted - I think
that I want something stronger in law, something that responds to the
very nature of these voicemail messages (and of emails) that for a time
(perhaps a very considerable time) they are simultaneously both in my
possession (typically stored in my brain after I have listened to them,
albeit that that is a fallible storage medium) and stored in the service
Now I use an internet phone service that parcels up a voicemail message
into a wav file and sends me that wav file by email (as well as keeping
the message for me to listen to over the phone)...
More information about the ukcrypto