Evo said:
You misread it, it does not say "participant". It says if you are a party to it, such as owning the internet service account used would make you a party to it.
Apologies, I was using it in the sense of "party", not "participant".
If you insist that it can never be legal, then you need to cite your source.
I've never insisted that, but you provided a law that does make it illegal in all circumstances other than those specifically outlined. Based on that law, unless you conform to one of those circumstances it is illegal.
xxChrisxx said:
Do you not understand that it's not 'law' yet? That's the whole reason why this thread is now a gazillion pages long.
It's not been decided that the statute you linked to applies in this case.
It's just one of the funny complexities of a common law system. The 'law' isn't the 'law' until a court rules (i.e interprets) it.
It's a law that basically says, unless you are covered by one of the below circumstances, to intercept a communication is illegal. How does that not apply to this case?
I still don't see how 'owning' the internet connection to a house makes you a party to the communications of those who use it. On this basis, if someone sends me information on how to build a bomb, my mother can be considered a party to this communication and therefore said to be 'involved'.
Let's look at this situation on the basis of the law evo provided:
The husband is not a party to the communication of the emails.
The husband did not have permission to read the emails.
Therefore, on the basis of what is written in this law he has acted in an illegal manner by intercepting the mail.
Why this law wouldn't apply I don't know. Hopefully we'll see more on it soon.
I do agree though, it will be dismissed.
