Starmer dumps doormat?

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Roland Perry said:
>> 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.

Yes, it is, unless the interception is done by the owner of the private
network or with her authority:

    1.(6) The circumstances in which a person makes an interception of a
    communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private
    telecommunication system are such that his conduct is excluded from
    criminal liability under subsection (2) if -
    (a) he is a person with a right to control the operation or the use of the
    system; or
    (b) he has the express or implied consent of such a person to make the
    interception.

[Is it me, or is that a sentence fragment with no primary verb?]

If I change the settings on my answering machine, that's legal. If a
visitor changes them without my knowledge, that's unlawful. If my adult
daughter does it without asking me, that depends on whether she has my
implied consent.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather          | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive at davros.org     | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646