In other of those examples, there is either a genuine or a perceived problem in informing the other party. Most people would probably agree that it would be highly undesirable if, when making an emergency call to 000, you had to wait while a recorded message was played telling you that the call would be recorded. It seems that there is meant to be. If, however, the intention of this section was to exclude participant monitoring or recording from the category of prohibited interception, it does not succeed. There are a number of difficulties with the section, mostly caused by trying to keep up with the changes in the telecommunications industry.
Several elements have to be present before the exemption operates.
The telecommunications service has to be provided by a carrier. The apparatus or equipment has to be part of the service which is provided by the carrier. The communication that is being recorded or listened to must pass over a telecommunications system of which the service in those premises is part. There are substantial difficulties with this. The current approach to the section has been to argue that a court is more likely to accept an interpretation that this section refers to services actually operated by a carrier.