Starmer dumps doormat?

[Andrew Cormack]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 20 January 2011 07:46
> To: ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Starmer dumps doormat?
> 
> In article <61E52F3A5532BE43B0211254F13883AE033A58 at EXC001>, Andrew
> Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at ja.net> writes
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> >> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> >> Sent: 19 January 2011 10:02
> >> To: ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> >> Subject: Re: Starmer dumps doormat?
> >>
> >> Several years ago I also wrote a mini-paper about the situation in
> >> places like an office, where a "boss" (sorry for the stereotyping)
> >> diverts his phone and voicemail to a secretary, and therefore the
> first
> >> person to get (and listen to) them is not the intended recipient.
> Make
> >> that in spades when it's the secretary who sets up the diversion on
> her
> >> own initiative. [nb in these scenarios, the recipient can be argued
> to
> >> have given permission, but the sender hasn't; and many corporates
> use
> >> what are in effect public networks as a virtual PABX, so it's not
> >> necessarily being done on a private network either.
> >
> >Roland
> >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.
> >
> >None of us knew the law of agency in detail (and I haven't had time
> >since to look it up).
> 
> Me neither, and this is the first time I've heard of the concept being
> applied to RIPA. Without (no, really) wishing to re-open an old debate,
> perhaps one could argue that a virus checker (supplied in the network)
> that I have subscribed to, is also my agent? [And, cough, a behavioural
> advertising platform (that I've agreed to on behalf of my family) too].