Starmer dumps doormat?

[Roland Perry]

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.

>And later:
>
>> Unlike setting the VCR, where they are better at it than the adults).
>
>VCR, grandad?

Oh yes. Although today I first encountered DLNA, and maybe need a 
switched on kid to fly it for me...
-- 
Roland Perry