Starmer dumps doormat?

[Roland Perry]

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