Starmer dumps doormat?

[Roland Perry]

In article <731509C0-5F9D-4D2B-91ED-21B0FA91FA05 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, and the recipient similarly has 
given consent for all household members to dial 1571.

I'm not sure that the same assumptions about consent necessarily scale 
to the generally less well defined/understood (by the callers anyway) 
corporate environment, though.

In article 
<AANLkTimUbnMyA_nk9YVb6_UCdB3fO_XHHDiA4gh3g6sV at mail.gmail.com>, Matthew 
Pemble <matthew at pemble.net> writes

>Roland does seem to be asking rather than declaiming

I'm thinking out loud, wondering if anyone else has considered these 
scenarios, that the current law (and enforcers) would seem to regard as 
pesky edge cases, but are in fact everyday occurrences.
-- 
Roland Perry