247
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
247 points (98.1% liked)
Not The Onion
22404 readers
455 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Taiwan sounds like a weird place, if you are not allowed to record a surveillance video in your own home.
It's irrelevant that it was done with a camera on a cleaner, it's no different than if it had been a dedicated surveillance.
If the article is accurate it sounds like their "reasonable expectation of privacy" focuses more on the individual than the location of the recording. Or maybe it's different for "intimate acts".
Which can be true in other countries too depending on the situation, where ownership of the location doesn't always allow you to record anybody within without consent.
And how did that term become relevant, when fucking in the bedroom she shared with her husband?
From a surveillance perspective, he is clearly an intruder, and she is his accomplish. This judgement is bullshit, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is overturned if he appeals it. But he probably won't for $4,700.
It sounds less unreasonable if you say "secretly filming people fuck in private"
We also had a thing around here where some tv host got in trouble for using hidden bedroom cameras to record himself with unknowing people, as evidence in case of allegations.
He absolutely had a good reason for that. It was crucial in the divorce settlement. You can't claim privacy when fucking around in your husbands bedroom.
"it's abuse to record" but not physical abuse, so it must be emotional then.
Is cheating not emotional abuse? What a weird take.
I wonder if it would be the same thought process if genders wre reversed.
Good point. She was aiding an intruder into his bedroom, perfectly justified to record it, especially since it had an impact on their divorce case.
It is 100% he who was wronged. Him recording it is 100% justified.
If he had put it on the Internet, or sent it to her friends, that would be different. She can't complain that he recorded evidence in his own house.
You keep using the word intruder, but the person was invited by a legal occupant. The law doesn't work on a tit for tat basis, one person's bad behavior isn't a legal excuse for someone else's bad behavior.
I'm surprised he didn't have a lawyer go through it and delete parts that would get him in trouble.
I agree with your overall logic, but I think you replied to the wrong person. They never even mentioned the word abuse, nor did they say it wasn't.
Lol yup sure did, but they found the comment