• FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    If someone offers you punch from a punch bowl and warns you, “there might be piss in it” while taking their own glass and drinking some of the punch, they might nevertheless be annoyed if you piss in their cup. Maybe they were only OK with the piss that was already in the punch. Maybe there was never any piss and they were just saying that as a very weird joke. To call it consent to drinking your piss is wrong.

    There’s two important parts to this:

    1. Me recording a conversation / drinking my own piss is not the same as you recording the same conversation / causing me to drink your piss.
    2. A comment about possibility doesn’t necessarily imply consent anyway.

    I mean, I’m quite open to the possibility that your interpretation is legally valid in the USA, or in some particular jurisdiction - and maybe you or someone else has a reference to back it up! I’m just saying that it seems kind of shaky just on the face of it, and could imagine a situation where a lawyer lawyers out of it.

    And FWIW, I understood it to genuinely mean that sometimes the call is not recorded, because recording every single call might be expensive, or perhaps even some staff object to their calls being recorded. But I’m sure at a lot of places they record them all and use the same “maybe” language.