247
Locking this post, as people are behaving horribly in the comments.
The man from Taoyuan, Taiwan, was sentenced to five months in prison for unlawfully recording intimate images.
His suspicions eventually led to a discovery on Christmas Eve. The husband accessed a robot vacuum at the property remotely through an app, intending to communicate with his wife using the device.
Instead, its live camera showed that another man was there, and he then activated the recording function, capturing footage of the two together.
It wasn't for catching her cheating, it was for unlawfully recording her having sex.
On one hand - yeah. On the other - perfect evidence for the divorce case.
I mean, it's not like he deliberately set up a hidden camera to record her having sex. Just used an already available camera, that presumably she knew was there, since you usually buy that kind of stuff together.
Without this recording she says she didn't cheat, he cannot prove otherwise, and money and assets get split unfairly.
Not necessarily saying this is how the case should have went. It's just another angle to look at the situation from.
Can you imagine, every time you try to cheat the god-damned roomba zooms right into the room
No, he literally got in legal trouble not for catching his wife cheating, but for illegally recording her.
He got in trouble for obtaining proof of her cheating, without which he may not have won the settlement that he won.
load more comments
(25 replies)
TLDR: husband caught his wife cheating through the camera of a robot vacuum, then decided to start recording the affair to help his legal case. He won NT$500,000 but since he illegally recorded the affair he was sued back and fined NT$150,000 (or prison time if he wishes not to pay)
If he pays, he still comes out 350k on top. I have no idea how Taiwan legal system works, but I assume lawyers aren't stupid expensive like they are in the usa.
Funny that you can sue for damages if your marital partner is cheating
I suppose that has to do with privacy laws in whatever state/country… And whether or not they have been updated for modern considerations… Or persist to protect an individual’s privacy regardless of modernization… It all depends on one’s perspective.
I say all of this, of course, without knowing the specifics of the case, nor the specifics of the local laws in question.
NT$500,000 is about $15K in USD.
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.
reasonable expectation of privacy
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.
to record a surveillance video in your own home.
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
"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.
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.
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(42 replies)
I'm imagining them coupling and the robot vacuum just chilling in front of them the whole time and moving with them as they switch rooms.
He probably thinks it sucks
view more: next ›
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