Starmer dumps doormat?
Roland Perry
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Thu Jan 20 07:25:26 GMT 2011
In article <F121BA0C-BA1E-4DCE-9EB4-AE8964A86897 at batten.eu.org>, Ian
Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes
>Did you consider the possibility that in that scenario the secretary
>may actually be acting as a legal agent for the boss? It was discussed
>on another list last year where we concluded that if the secretary
>wasn't the "intended recipient" then there was no way out of the
>conclusion that they were acting unlawfully, because of the requirement
>for both parties to have consented.
>
>Of course, you don't even need to construct scenarios of the workplace
>to get this problem. Households with a shared answering machine, for
>example
But that example (maybe even literally in Parliamentary debate) is one
of the reasons for it not being an offence to intercept on a private
network. And everything beyond BT's white terminating box is a private
network.
(The difference in the corporate situation, upon which I was relying,
was the idea that a Centrex system, or Centrex-for-mobiles (whether that
might be called) is comprised mainly of public networking, especially
the point at which the diversion takes place.)
--
Roland Perry
More information about the ukcrypto
mailing list