Starmer dumps doormat?
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Sun Jan 23 14:28:55 GMT 2011
In article <5D1713F8-7C4A-4210-B5E6-307E0A0B41B9 at batten.eu.org>, Ian
Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes
>>>> And when I type "1571", and listen to a message to my wife, have I
>>>>intercepted it, and did I do so lawfully.
>>> On what basis is it legal, whereas other scenarios are illegal?
>> Perhaps the sender has given consent by leaving the message on what
>>he can presumably identify as an answering machine service that might
>>be accessed by multiple household members
>A lot of people don't change the outgoing message, though, so unless
>you know people's domestic arrangements, you won't know if it's
>accessible by multiple people.
What I meant was that the answering machine/service in most families can
be presumed to be accessible by at least all those members of the family
who can be bothered.
>Especially as a lot of younger callers, whose experience is more with
>mobiles than landlines, may assume that it's like mobile voicemail
>which is generally only accessibly by the intended recipient and the
>News of the World.
Are they really as naive as that? Most will surely have been exposed to
a conventional answering machine/service while growing up. And as for
the privacy of mobiles, I often see kids grabbing one another's mobiles
so they can flick through the SMS.
>> Unlike setting the VCR, where they are better at it than the adults).
Oh yes. Although today I first encountered DLNA, and maybe need a
switched on kid to fly it for me...
More information about the ukcrypto