this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
224 points (99.1% liked)
Showerthoughts
43452 readers
252 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure that is legally reliable... The word "may" has two meanings, one expressing permission, the other expressing possibility. Clearly they are related, but not the same, so maybe the mean "it might be recorded" rather than saying "permission exists to record it"
It doesn't matter which meaning it is. Either way, if a call might be recorded and you stay on the line, you agree to the possibility of it being recorded. Like wise, them saying the call might be recorded could easily mean it might be recorded by you. There is not an instance where they can consent to only them recording, and not consent to you recording, without a much more legally binding contract.
I always understood it to mean "this call might be recorded" but they are definitely recording. It's like a cheeky "who knows, maybe we'll record maybe we won't" when they are always recording...
The way I see it, an announcement was made to all parties that the line may be recorded, not that it might be recorded. If they 'might' record it, that's what they should say, but it's not.
If anyone stays on the line after that point, it could be being recorded.
It means a random selection of calls (up to "all of them") will be recorded.
Source: wrote QA software for call centers.
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:
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.
You could just stop defending corps. And quit talking about piss while you’re at it.
When you refer to "my piss" and "your piss", you imply a distinction that does not actually exist in law. Under wiretapping laws, there is no distinction between the piss of one participant and the piss of another participant in the conversation. When you consent to drinking piss from the punch bowl, you consent to drinking any participant's piss, and not just your own.
Your entire argument arises from that non-existent distinction; your entire argument fails without it.
From California's Penal Code:
To me that implies that each person who records the conversation must get the consent of all parties. That's the plain meaning, and for me it would therefore take a further explicit statement to the effect of, "consent to one party recording shall be taken to be consent to any party recording" which I don't see there.
Good. We're moving on to a different argument, and abandoning the "piss" metaphor. Excellent.
You cited this law. Specifically, 632(a).
I would direct your attention to the definition of "confidential conversation", at 632(c):
Upon any individual on the call stating "This call may be recorded", every party present "may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded". When that happens, the call no longer qualifies as a "confidential conversation". As it is no longer a "confidential conversation", 632(a) no longer applies. As it is no longer a "confidential conversation", any party to it may record it.
Why is there any clause about consent, if consent is never needed? Seems to me that the conversation remains a confidential one.
If you're actually a lawyer, you could presumably cite a case where this is so interpreted. If not, it still seems very shaky to rely on this.
I'm going to assume you're acting in good faith for one more response. I'm going to assume you didn't actually read 632(c). I'm going to parse out all the language that refers to non-pertinent circumstances. And I'm going to make it big and bold so you understand that it is actually important for you to read this:
For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” ... excludes a communication ... in any ... circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be ... recorded.
We have a call where one party has said "This call may be recorded". A circumstance has arisen in which the parties may reasonably expect this call to be recorded. This call is now specifically excluded from classification as a "confidential communication".
I don't think you're stupid, and I don't think you're acting in bad faith. I assume that you didn't actually read or comprehend what I previously posted. Moving forward, I will not be making that same assumption again. As soon as the parties are aware that the conversation may be recorded, this particular statute no longer applies.
Who said consent is never needed? Certainly not I. Certainly not the law. The idea that "consent is never needed" arose entirely within your own understanding; within your own mind.
This is an eavesdropping statute. This law applies primarily to third parties, not actual parties to the conversation.
Adam and Bob are having a private conversation in Bob's office, but Mallory has placed a voice recorder under the desk. Mallory is not a party to the conversation. Neither Adam nor Bob have any reason to believe anyone is recording. This is still a confidential conversation, even though it is actually being recorded. Adam and Bob would both have to consent, or Mallory can be charged under this law.
Saying "I assume you were replying in good faith but next time I won't" while being a patronising twat is not, in fact, replying in good faith. Goodbye forever.
👍
By continuing to stay in this call you are obviously agreeing to be recorded unless you have the option to deny the request.
The point is that it's no longer expected to be private. Therefore wiretap laws don't apply. (But check with a state lawyer.)