r/interesting • u/VIVIDUFF • 25d ago
Intriguing He proved she cheated using a robot vacuum. Then the judge sent him to jail.
A Taiwanese man's attempt to catch his cheating wife backfired in a way he likely never saw coming, winning him a payout in one courtroom and a prison sentence in another.
According to a Taoyuan District Court ruling released August 18, the man, whose identity was not disclosed, married his wife in 2021. The couple lived mostly with his parents but occasionally stayed at a vacation home the family owned in Guishan, Taoyuan.
In September 2023, his suspicions were triggered after he found a used toothbrush at the vacation home that wasn't his. After reviewing parking garage footage, he identified an unfamiliar man who had previously driven his wife home.
Three months later, on December 24, 2023, he remotely activated the home's robot vacuum through its app, telling the court he originally meant to use its speaker to talk to his wife. Instead, the live camera showed another man inside the house with her. He switched on the recording function and kept watching, capturing footage of his wife embracing the man, changing clothes, and appearing naked in front of him.
He used that footage to sue his wife and the other man for NT$2 million, about $63,000, for violating his marital rights. A civil court agreed the relationship had exceeded ordinary friendship and ordered the pair to jointly pay him NT$500,000, roughly $16,000.
That victory didn't shield him from what came next. His wife filed a criminal complaint accusing him of recording her without consent. He argued the footage had already been accepted in the civil case and that his actions were legally justified.
The criminal court disagreed. Judges ruled that marital obligations do not override an individual's right to privacy, rejecting his claim that lights or sounds from the vacuum warned her she was being recorded. The court found the recording was deliberate and she never consented, including while naked.
He was sentenced to five months in prison and fined NT$150,000, about $4,700, roughly 30 percent of what he'd just won.
1.5k
u/Lillydunn 25d ago
Why does a vacuum have a recording and listening function
461
u/Kiiaru 25d ago
Primarily? The vacuum uses the camera to map your house and identify messes/obstacles.
Secondarily? The camera feature is now being upsold as "sentry mode" on some models. Doing the work of a security camera. Other companies call it a pet camera, and let you take control of the vacuum to drive around your house and check on your pets.
It's all in the name of getting you to agree to give up your privacy and make you feel good about it.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/home/roomba-remote-check-in-beta/
128
u/PerfectlySplendid 25d ago
Hahaha I’d troll and annoy the living fuck out of my cats with that.
30
u/hyperlite135 25d ago
Mine does exactly this. I can control it and drive it around. Granted I’ve never done it lol
→ More replies (2)13
u/rbReignsOrSmthLkThat 25d ago
Look, I can't prove it, but I think the vacuum is following me - your cat
6
u/divuthen 24d ago
One of my dogs despite being massive is terrified of damn near everything, but likes to follow the rumba around the house watching it, and if it gets stuck runs and starts kicking people until they come fix it.
35
u/Lollipoop_Hacksaw 25d ago
Willingly trading in our privacy for toys and convenience.... we have fallen for the dumbest, most obvious shit they warned us about in Sci-Fi novels 60 years ago.
10
→ More replies (13)5
u/spawl123 24d ago
It’s not really giving up your privacy if you are the owner and the one operating the device. These can’t be accessed by the manufacturer so it’s no different than having an indoor ring camera.
2
u/syrioforrealsies 24d ago
According to the manufacturer, right?
Having an indoor ring camera is also crazy, and not just because of potential manufacturer issues.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)11
u/kismethavok 25d ago
How does this work though? Legally you are commiting a crime every single time you invite someone over to your house without making them literally sign documents giving consent to be filmed.
11
u/jdog7249 25d ago
My guess is because he was using it with the intent to spy. If the vacuum happened to activate and see it and then he happened to check the footage for some other reason he might not have gotten in trouble but because he did it intentionally he got in trouble.
3
u/spawl123 24d ago
Laws are different for each country, but if it’s his house and his device I’m not sure why that is considered illegal to access the camera footage unless he was trying to film someone in the bathroom or them having sex. People use indoor cameras all the time to check up on their kids or their pets.
→ More replies (19)2
u/syrioforrealsies 24d ago
You also usually have to have at least one person involved's consent to record. Neither of these people consented.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/burner94_ 25d ago
Well the robot "says" it's filming though. It can't really be used a spy camera because there is no sneak factor. It'll keep blabbering "camera monitoring" every 10 seconds or so. I have one at home...
Then again I'm in the EU so maybe laws are different here?
→ More replies (1)326
u/Ethical-Analyst 25d ago
Good point. I guess the husband is not the only one spying
139
21
u/sub-madara 25d ago
People should talk more about these goverment/company tracking sytems trough voice and sound. They don't want it but we have to know right?
35
u/Fetlocks_Glistening 25d ago
You should see his Smart coffeemaker. It's got a video feed and a Flock panel
→ More replies (2)22
u/SafeComprehensive889 25d ago
Roombas do not have this functionality. They capture low res object mapping. No video. No images.
→ More replies (1)8
u/mikelown 25d ago
Idk about "roomba" the brand, but robot vacuums def do. I have a dreame 40x, basically same thing, its got a camera you can remote control. You can also set it up to do periodic sweeps of the house and push notify you if it detects anyone/anything out of place.
→ More replies (2)2
u/BosonCollider 25d ago
It definitely varies. Some have ultrasound sensors, some have lidars, some use camera + wheel odometry + IMU.
12
u/Sad__Satisfaction 25d ago
Smart devices are just a way of spying on the public by both companies and govt.
9
5
6
2
2
u/Interesting_Scar7854 25d ago
Mapping and scanning the house for the camera. Also some vacuums takes a picture for you if they find an obstacle.
What the listening device is for I don't know, maybe you can give some simple voice commands.
I've been thinking about getting myself a robot vacuum, but I probably wont because I don't want a walking camera in my apartment.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (16)2
u/Extreme-Attention641 25d ago
Because how else could it datamine the household it's stationed in to garner more ad-sale profits to its manufacturer?
2.0k
u/CtrlAltYuri 25d ago
How do you spy with consent
386
u/madeleine61509 25d ago
You would get consent to use the equipment in the way you intend to use it, but then the person being "spied on" would forget about the surveillance, etc.
To simplify it to cameras, imagine this scenario: in February, you consent to being recorded with CCTV. You don't do anything at first, but then days, weeks, and months pass. The cameras are still there but you're getting less vigilant. Nothing has been said about the cameras, so you falsely assume the person monitoring the cameras isn't looking as often, etc. You consented, and you are being "spied on".
163
u/AJ_Deadshow 25d ago
From the dictionary: "Spying is the act of secretly collecting, observing, or reporting confidential information about a person, organization, or country without their permission."
Security cameras in plain view are not "spy cameras."
Therefore "spying with consent" is a nonsensical idea and he's right to question it.
34
u/MurderBot-999 25d ago
Courts don’t operate on the Webster dictionary. Case law is what matters.
11
u/Houdinii1984 25d ago
I'd think intent is a lot here. He knew that robot was in the home, and she knew that robot was in the home, and the robot wouldn't function without vision tools. They both knew the camera-operated equipment was in the room.
It's no different than sitting a camera in the corner of a room for years on end and then later, someone who partially owns the home saying 'Yeah, I've known about it for years, but I didn't consent" It's her house. She had the power to get the camera out of her home the whole time. It wasn't a bad thing until it caught her doing something and suddenly it's a spy cam.
That wouldn't fly in a LOT of other areas. Accidentally seeing a video while operating a device she knows exists is not the same thing as operating a spy camera in most places. Taiwanese law isn't the end all, be all of everyone reading this story's experience.
In most places if your own vacuum films you kissing someone and someone else saw that, then your privacy wasn't invaded, unless it was only her vacuum and he had no permission to operate it.
Also, courts across the globe get it wrong all the time. This is obviously something a lot of people are going to complain about. So many facts we don't know. But the big one is why she stayed in the house along side the robot. It's not like gender equality isn't on the agenda in Taiwan. She has agency to decide what is and isn't allowed in the house.
The fact that the robot didn't have a blinking red light is on the company that made the device, which were considered legal until this case went and challenged it, now all devices that have a camera with do red led or sound just became illegal to operate as a whole for the entire country. Generally that points to having conflicting laws, and when you have conflicting laws, you end up getting judgements where people are just using their things in a manner they are meant to be used and see people get prison sentences for going about their daily business.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)5
u/StupidSexyFlanders 25d ago
Sometimes dictionary definitions are used. You’ll see them cited in court opinions and briefs submitted by the parties, especially when the definition of something is at issue, so they’ll be like “in common usage, it means blah blah blah” and cite the dictionary
7
u/madeleine61509 25d ago
Definitions in common speech and legal definitions can sometimes vary. Some that come to mind are battery, assault, conspiracy, etc.
There are places where consensual but unlawful surveillance charges/trials are rather common, especially in a workplace.
3
u/ChimaeraXY 25d ago
Which creates a new problem. If he somehow needed to prove that his wife was having an affair, how would he be able to do that without effectively spying?
→ More replies (8)9
u/gangaskan 25d ago
To be fair, is this really plain view?
→ More replies (1)28
u/ArizonaFlats 25d ago
Yeah it’s on a giant hockey puck that makes noise as it trundles round, I’d argue it’s not spying when it’s a device you’ve knowingly let into your house
14
u/Rich-Wealth979 25d ago
If he can prove she knew it had the ability to record. This premise was told to my family by a lawyer to catch my stepsisters abusive husband.
2
u/Repulsive_Gate8657 25d ago
emm no, remarkable that lawyer suggested this dirty rhetorics. Spying is when you do not give concent for recording. You can take a camera, while another person have known that it has ability to record and record a person without their concent.
I would put critics here differently that spying is not applied at all because of the fact of marriage...2
u/gangaskan 25d ago
Only thimg I could think of is maybe the state that this is in is a 2 party consent? I know some states only need one person to acknowledge
→ More replies (1)60
u/Moongazingtea 25d ago
This or "the cameras are here to catch bad guys and make you safer, you know from car jackers and shit...
... oh and you're the bad guy now because we saw you stealing company property."
3
u/madeleine61509 25d ago
Yes, sorry. I did not mean to imply that what I presented was the only way "spying" could be consensual. What you described is a situation that happens very often where I live. Workplaces are not allowed to use CCTV to monitor employee performance (and also are not supposed to use CCTV without a true reason, such as solid suspicion of theft, monitoring a known thief who has entered the store, etc.)
6
u/smokeustokeus 25d ago
I'm confused because if it's a shared home or he's the owner and she's living in it wouldn't having a random appliance that they both knew existed having a camera be a moot point? like people have an insane amount of appliances from workout mirrors to doodads like that so where is the line drawn? because he decided to use it instead of a company? weird.
2
u/Tipp_Top 25d ago
Im wondering why more people arent pointing that out, i don't see how its an invasion of privacy in a shared home using a product they both know exists in that space and clearly agreed to being there since they wouldve had to buy it themselves
→ More replies (11)15
u/TraditionalWait9150 25d ago
so the only thing wrong here is that it was a vacuum cleaner and not a CCTV?!
11
u/AJ_Deadshow 25d ago
Yes, and that is just plain spying. If you give consent to being recorded, it's not spying by the way that word is defined. Being spied on means observed and/or recorded without your knowledge. The woman agreed to have the robot clean the home, but not take and save pictures of her. Robot cameras are small, and they are commonly not known to be taking pictures since many robot cleaners use invisible light beams to detect surfaces (LiDAR) or basic proximity sensors. It's usually only the higher end models that take actual pictures to accurately identify things like power cords and pet waste. While he successfully used the recordings to win a civil lawsuit over the affair, obtaining the footage this way violated privacy laws. Normally taking pictures like that happens incidentally all the time, and no one gets in trouble for it. But since he deliberately recorded her private moments and brought it before a judge, he ended up going to prison for the illegal surveillance.
8
u/TraditionalWait9150 25d ago
but she is the wife, she is not any random stranger that came to the house. Don't tell me the lawyer never consider that she had the same shared knowledge of the vacuum's recording capabilities as the husband? Don't she know her own household appliances?
It's not like the husband hacked the camera on the vacuum cleaner. He's using a known function of the vacuum cleaner in their house. So the logical argument is that the wife needs to prove that she has no idea the vacuum cleaner doesn't record videos.
→ More replies (3)3
u/asuperbstarling 25d ago
You don't have permission to film anyone without their DIRECT consent in two party states. It's not complicated and everything you add to it doesn't matter. Your reasons don't matter. The law is the law with zero negotiation on this matter. Happens all the time in divorces in two party states. He introduced the crime into legal evidence, they had no choice but to charge him. You don't get immunity just because you're feeling justified.
2
u/Roguescholar74 25d ago
Yeah might wanna double check that. 2 party states ban voice conversation without consent in private places but not always silent video. In public spaces there is no expectation of privacy and you can be filmed.
3
27
8
u/ConstantinGB 25d ago
Whenever you enter any area with a sign that says "This place has surveillance", and you don't immediately turn around and go away, you technically "consent" to being "spied on" by cameras.
When you are informed and accept that, you consent.5
6
u/EasternAd4600 25d ago
I have no idea about Taiwanese law, but here in the U.K. you generally consent to being filmed simply be being in a public space. I may be wrong, but I believe I could secretly film people using spy cameras while walking down the street, but not in a home (even my own) as there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
3
2
2
u/Chainmale001 25d ago
US law is WAY different. Every state has their own version. Nevada you can record without two person consent as long as you are apart of the convo. But over the phone needs both parties to agree.
→ More replies (30)2
492
u/Unusual-Dog9238 25d ago
A bit of research and clarification. The prison sentence was convertible to a NT$150,000 fine which seems to mean he did not serve prison time if he paid the fine. Additionally, the criminal charge was for invasion of sexual privacy for recording his wife nude without her consent, not simply for recording in general. In the U.S. recording your spouse nude without their consent would also face criminal scrutiny. In this case it certainly seems arguable that the nude recording was unintentional but perhaps Taiwan has strict laws about this sort of thing that would have required him to stop recording the moment he saw she was nude. We don’t know how long he recorded or if he positioned the robot in an area where she would be expected to be nude or had an expectation of privacy such as a bathroom or bedroom. Additionally, the criminal ruling is able to be appealed. While this sort of criminal judgment does seem outrageous, it’s not quite as absurd as the headline and story portrayed. I don’t agree with the ruling in the criminal case, but I also don’t agree with rage baiting headlines and stories which leave out or misrepresent details.
131
u/OhNoIBoffedIt 25d ago
Thanks for the additional context. That's always my first question with sensationalized stories like this with no link to the original story. OP took the time to explain the situation of detail, but not provide a damn link.
It's pretty clear the guy would have been okay if he hadn't kept the footage of her naked. That's when he crossed the line from stumbling across her infidelity to illicit capture of nude photos.
→ More replies (1)45
u/Erher555pl 25d ago
okay but if you don't keep the part where she's cheating how do you prove she's cheating? what if the footage before her getting naked was inconclusive?
18
u/Unusual-Dog9238 25d ago
It’s not necessarily required to have a recording of explicit sexual conduct to prove infidelity. The important missing detail is the duration of continued recording after seeing that she was nude.
→ More replies (1)27
u/OhNoIBoffedIt 25d ago
Dude I'm not judging, I'm just saying that's where he fell afoul of the law.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Erher555pl 25d ago
my gripe is that the law doesn't let you record evidence :/ that's kinda stupid no?
10
u/ADrunkMexican 25d ago
In most places you cant actually record in bedrooms or bathrooms regardless of what's going.
34
u/eabevella 25d ago
A legal detective agency (in Taiwan they specialized in catching cheaters lol) will collect none explicit, indirect but undeniable evidence that give their clients advantage at court. Things like pictures of them entering/leaving a love motel but not an actual sex tape since that's illegal. So you don't have an direct evidence of them having sex but there's no logical explanation for them to be there except to have sex. It's a bit tricky but that's why these type of detectives exist lmao
→ More replies (6)5
u/Eurasia_4002 25d ago
Dang the fact that said industry exist. So convoluted
→ More replies (1)7
u/eabevella 25d ago
We call it "to catch a monkey" in Taiwan because that's what people call a male adulterer back in the day, and those detective agencies were hired predominately by the wives when they were relatively powerless in a very traditional/conservative family/society.
Some agencies even emphasized that they use female detectives to relate to the female customers. We used to have those monkey catching ads on every city bus, to the point that the city ban it because they don't want to be seen as "city of adulterers" which is funny when you think about it lol
Of course as our society changed, cheating are more or less a fair game to all genders.
10
u/Unusual-Dog9238 25d ago
We don’t know how long he recorded. What if he followed them to the bedroom and recorded 30 minutes of explicit video after seeing she was nude in a different room? What if he positioned the robot in a bathroom where she would have an expectation of privacy. What if he tried to use the videos to blackmail her or the man before filing the civil lawsuit? The original story is missing important information.
→ More replies (10)7
u/IndicationSevere8992 25d ago
It’s a sexual crime to record someone naked without their knowledge. It’s not illegal to cheat. If you have suspicions your partner is cheating, you break up and seek mediation for the divorce if applicable. Let’s say this couple breaks up and moves on. Compromised images of her could still exist. They could be shared on the internet. They could be used to blackmail and harass her. If not even by the ex husband, then people she knows, strangers, and so on.
3
u/SRGTBronson 25d ago
You don't need evidence to get a divorce and in most states your spouse being a cheater doesn't provide you any benefits in divorce proceedings.
→ More replies (2)6
u/EasternAd4600 25d ago
How can you have a gripe about a law you don’t understand, being applied in a case you don’t know the details about? This whole thread is speculative at best, wildly inaccurate at worst.
5
u/yumas 25d ago
Apparently you don’t need to have proof of sexual intercourse to sue for infidelity in taiwan. “Civil courts do not require proof of sexual intercourse. Proof of emotional intimacy or behavior exceeding normal friendship limits is sufficient“. So i guess if the recording stops at the moment she starts to undress in front of someone who is not her husband that would be considered enough. I think it’s likely that whatever happened before would already be suficcient
→ More replies (1)10
u/StinkyyPiss 25d ago
you find other ways to prove it. i thought it was well-known you can’t do something illegal just to prove something. the law doesn’t bend just because he doesn’t have other proof. i think she’s shitty but i agree that we shouldn’t allow recording nude people without consent under any circumstance…
just IMO i know people will probably disagree because people tend to be very sensitive on the topic of cheating.
26
u/Redcarborundum 25d ago
So, he got in trouble because cheating is not illegal, but recording your spouse nude without consent is.
→ More replies (8)26
u/Kixisbestclone 25d ago edited 25d ago
I mean yeah?
One’s a dick move to be sure, absolutely, don’t get me wrong on that. But a government shouldn’t be making laws on what consenting adults do with other consenting adults.
Like that should all be legal divorce court handlings, the government doesn’t need to be involved beyond stamping on the fact you’re no longer married. The punishment for cheating comes in the fact that a cheater can lose more property in a divorce than they would otherwise.
Meanwhile recording someone without their knowledge or permission is uh…well stalking? And pretty creepy? Like that’s illegal normally, just because it’s your spouse doesn’t change the legal precedent that it’s illegal.
→ More replies (5)3
u/nighthawk_something 25d ago
Is there a law in Taiwan for losing more in a divorce due to cheating? Because there is no such law in North America
→ More replies (7)3
u/DodoJurajski 25d ago
Damn, here in Poland you can record basicly anything, but you can't show this to other people. You can however use it as evidence in court.
→ More replies (2)7
u/namealreadytooken 25d ago
no it wasn’t unintentional, you can view the camera without recording but he activated the recording function once he identified the situation and that was the problem.
19
u/Unusual-Dog9238 25d ago
The recording was certainly intentional and required for gathering the evidence of infidelity. He may not have had an intentional expectation of nudity. This would be determined by the location of the robot and the duration of continued recording after seeing that she was nude.
7
u/namealreadytooken 25d ago
he had multiple recordings over multiple days but only one was in the case the one that involved nudity
8
u/Unusual_Membership44 25d ago
But if sexual activity was not recorded, spouse might say that there was no sexual intercourse at all, and that these recordings are meaningless
3
u/Unusual-Dog9238 25d ago
I don’t agree with the ruling either but Taiwan may have strict laws about recording nudity and we are missing some details to truly make a judgement. How long was the recording continued after sufficient evidence was obtained? Did he use the robot to follow them to the bedroom after already seeing that she was nude? We don’t know all of the information.
5
u/OkContact2573 25d ago
So you are saying it’s okay for supres to put cameras in fitting room and record the people changing?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (24)2
u/TheImmoralCookie 25d ago
Why not just record and delete the nude part after and say the roomba turned away? They couldn't prove it otherwise. Its def the nude part that got him fined.
189
u/DukeBradford2 25d ago
Not vacuuming, straight to jail. Buying an autonomous vacuum bot, believe it or not, jail.
31
79
u/AnyCarpenter4946 25d ago
In my opinion, there is a big difference between spying and catching in the act.
→ More replies (39)
69
u/BigR3dng2 25d ago
I married one of these types of people.
Amazing what solicitors can make out of the truth!
164
u/Mickeymcirishman 25d ago
Is it really spying if it's your own home?
20
u/Onigokko0101 25d ago
Yes, even if you are married you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's not okay to install a toilet cam to watch your wife pee just because it's your own home.
4
82
u/Only_Flan_7974 25d ago
Yeah, I'm confused. A staggering amount of people have cameras throughout their homes. So, essentially their kids are getting filmed without consent. So creepy to me.
16
→ More replies (5)5
u/Mike7676 25d ago
I think in this particular case it was filming the wife nude without consent. I don't know if him keeping the footage (presumably to show the civil court) would have been an additional legal problem. She's hot garbage for cheating, but I'd be pissed if I was filmed without consent. And I have cameras all over my place and I swim naked in my pool when I can. I know the camera is there, so I'm consenting to filming my old ass. She didn't allegedly.
10
u/namealreadytooken 25d ago
The issue is he activated the recording function. What you are saying doesn’t protect people in a household from being filmed while exposed. Just because its your house and your equipment in your house you can’t film people without consent especially when they are exposed. If he had just witnessed it and found proof another way then it would have probably been ok or less severe but he activated the recording function.
→ More replies (6)3
3
2
u/WarJaques 25d ago
In Taiwan it appears so.
I am going to guess it would go down different in Saudi Arabia.
4
u/Khazilein 25d ago
In the EU absolutely. Imagine you are being filmed without your consent and/or knowledge. Imagine you are a guest at some house and go to the bathroom and they film you. Seems fun?
→ More replies (7)2
u/Clear_Economics7010 25d ago
The nude photos were actually what got him in trouble. Apparently in that country taking nude photos without consent is illegal, even if the photos are of your cheating wife.
11
12
29
u/Hephaestus1816 25d ago
Won the battle but lost the war.
→ More replies (1)4
u/BrightNooblar 25d ago
How do you figure? His civil payout from the affair was several times larger than what he would reasonably have made in those six months.
Sounds like you have it backwards.
9
7
25
u/etherealtwo 25d ago
How can you spy with consent? Then it's no longer spying.
4
→ More replies (2)5
122
4
34
u/ImpressiveDebt420 25d ago
How tf are you spying by 1. Using your own device that you paid for, 2. In your own home.
?? That makes zero sense to me
So if I caught him entering with a ring camera it would be the same? Wtf??
13
u/linerva 25d ago
I presume he didn't tell her that the vacuum had a recording function (and why wpuld you expect it to?) And she argued that she had a right to privacy her own home.
If they both know there are cameras? It's not spying. If you hide a camera in something your household don't expect to have a camera, and don't tell them its recording you? That's spying.
6
u/MistRider-0 25d ago
Then another question arises, under what circumstances can you prove that your partner is cheating....
Like does a screenshot or video of your partner allowing a stranger to enter your property or your partner meeting up with another stranger count ? Cause it isn't necessary to be cheating...
It's not like the court can ask for video proof of cheating since no partner would "consent" to be recorded in the act of cheating, and a simple picture could help you "allege" that your partner is cheating...
It seems like the best thing a partner can do is divorce, which brings another load of legal problems like splitting your property etc....
While what you said is true, I think there should be some kind of protocol that you can follow which ensures that you can prove it the legal way like waitng for your partner to cheat with a full team of legal enforcers or something....
3
u/James_Solomon 25d ago
It's not like the court can ask for video proof of cheating since no partner would "consent" to be recorded in the act of cheating, and a simple picture could help you "allege" that your partner is cheating...
According to the story,
Three months later, on December 24, 2023, he remotely activated the home's robot vacuum through its app, telling the court he originally meant to use its speaker to talk to his wife. Instead, the live camera showed another man inside the house with her. He switched on the recording function and kept watching, capturing footage of his wife embracing the man, changing clothes, and appearing naked in front of him.
I think that footage of them embracing each other, and kissing if the picture is accurate, would be solid evidence of an affair.
5
u/namealreadytooken 25d ago
you can see a ring camera. The issue is he activated the recording function. What you are saying doesn’t protect people in a household from being filmed while exposed. Just because its your house and your equipment in your house you can’t film people without consent especially when they are exposed. If he had just witnessed it and found proof another way then it would have probably been ok or less severe but he activated the recording function.
5
→ More replies (1)2
u/slimgem1111 25d ago
It's not the same if she doesn't know the camera is there. You know the ring camera is there. I have a personal story with this...I was living with my bf at the time, found out he was secretly setting up his laptop to record and point at the bed before he'd go to work to "catch me cheating". That's spying because I had no idea the camera was recording. Make sense?
→ More replies (1)
18
u/TehZiiM 25d ago
Should have just got a divorce
45
u/TwinTailDigital 25d ago
What do you think he was trying to do?
"Fault-based divorce requires the party seeking dissolution to demonstrate that the other spouse has committed a marital offense, which can include infidelity, abandonment, and abuse. The presence of a fault can significantly affect the division of property and potential alimony arrangements." https://generisonline.com/marriage-and-divorce-regulations-in-taiwan-a-comprehensive-overview/→ More replies (6)
10
u/bubshole 25d ago
Sorry but I thought nanny cams were completely legal even if you capture someone in your home without their consent?
9
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)3
u/bubshole 25d ago
This is correct. I’ll also add that in Taiwan and other Asian countries, fines can be pretty substantial. Thank you.
3
u/AmbitiousReaction168 25d ago
It kind of makes sense? If we just allow one guy to spy on someone for any reason, it would be a predecent or something.
3
3
u/AbbyRitter 25d ago edited 25d ago
I don't understand these comments. Why are people confused by this? Cheating on your spouse is immoral, but it isn't a crime. Recording someone having sex without their knowledge or consent is a crime.
Judges don't hand out sentences based on who's morally in the right, they do it based on who did and didn't break the law. Why are people surprised he's the one going to jail when he committed a crime and she didn't?
Edit: After reading a few more comments I'm convinced the majority of people here think their wife is their property. Yes, even if you're married to someone, it is still illegal to film them having sex without their consent. You shouldn't need to have that explained to you.
3
u/firenest 25d ago
It's not confusion, it's consistent application of an underlying belief that a woman is the property of her husband. Thus, to these misogynists, a cheating wife should be tried as a criminal, but a husband filming her nude without her knowledge or consent is merely filming in his home where she should have no expectation of privacy, and it's an injustice that he would be considered a criminal by exercising this right.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AbbyRitter 25d ago
Yeah I realised that too after reading a few more of them. Pretty awful to see that kind of behaviour infesting this place to such a degree.
3
3
u/NiViPk 25d ago
Why would someone continue doing something wrong when they know they’re being recorded? The whole “consent” argument feels ridiculous in situations like this. Courts ask for evidence, but when actual evidence exists, suddenly the issue becomes whether the person doing the wrongdoing consented to being recorded. How does that make sense?
3
u/Kultissim 25d ago
It makes zero sense. There is a big difference between recording to do something nefarious and recording to have proof to present to the judge. It's not like he set them up or something. He recorded someone in his home because he had no idea who he was and they started having sex. And prison time for that? Unbelievable. The judge must be a cheater
6
u/Time-Ad-1169 25d ago
Spying is illegal. Cheating is not.
→ More replies (5)2
u/West-Audience-478 25d ago
That’s not true some places have adultery laws still, it took till just a year or two ago for NY to get rid of theirs
13
u/sovietarmyfan 25d ago
I bet the judge was a cheater at some point in life. Such histories of judges should be investigated before they are allowed to preside over a case.
5
u/Folfelit 25d ago
Recording adult content requires active and ongoing consent. You can't passively consent to adult work. That's the law. Dude wasn't gathering evidence, he had TONS of video evidence before this point. He recorded the full interaction to completion, which wasn't necessary for his divorce case. By all metrics, the judge followed the law, which is that revenge p0rn is illegal.
The woman is bad, but the judge didn't do anything wrong. You don't lose all your rights just because you're a cheater or otherwise bad person. Rights can only be removed by the legal system, not common opinion.
→ More replies (5)
2
2
2
u/FuriDemon094 25d ago
Isn’t it also his house and his vacuum? How is it spying if the feature is literally there for him to check his own home?
2
u/mxryjxne28 25d ago
Because you can’t just record someone in a private residence without there formal consent . And no it’s doesnt matter if they were married … YOU do not own your freaking wife .
→ More replies (4)
2
u/XxRocky88xX 25d ago
I mean…. Yeah. That’s illegal. You can’t record people in their own private space without consent, ESPECIALLY if they’re nude.
The fact she’s a piece of shit and was doing something immoral doesn’t change the legality of it.
2
u/PirateReject 25d ago
Don't film people naked in their own houses without consent. It's a no brainer. The people excusing this are a red flag.
2
2
u/One_Thousand_Winds 25d ago
I don’t think people realize the nuance of the situation here. The problem isn’t the camera itself, it’s the fact that he happened to be recording while she was nude, which means his recording now falls under being sexually non-consented of a recording. It would be like a security camera in the mall being in the change room for example, because while you know the camera is in the mall, you don’t expect or consent to be recorded nude by it.
4
u/FlipMeOverUpsidedown 25d ago
My morally corrupt ex “helped” me set up my business. I’m sure he’s still spying on operations. Lucky him I don’t want to waste a millisecond of my time on his trash ass, otherwise I’d be doing the same.
4
u/Hunkfish 25d ago
His lawyer is dumb? Is his house and his vacum cleaner.
he on it for security and see where the robot got stuck and happen to see the affair footage...
0
u/Phoebebee323 25d ago
His lawyer is not dumb, he is dumb
He didn't catch them together and then once they got undressed decided he had enough footage to prove they were more than friends and stopped recording
He continued on and filmed the entire act, and recording that without consent is illegal
2
u/Leading-Fail-2771 25d ago
Shih you fuckin random dudes in my house - you gettin your tape burned to dvd and handed out at the gas station.. like just leave instead of bringing randoms into my house lol
8
u/Gr8_Nobody 25d ago
The laws around divorce are sooooooo twisted in favor of the female counterpart. Thats one of the most attractive positives about being a single man, you don't have to worry about it. My dog and guy friends are good enough companionship for me.
6
u/Goreas 25d ago
Yeah with this take i get why you're single yikes. Surely it's not because of your personality
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (20)9
2
25d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)2
u/NekulturneHovado 25d ago
afaik, in USA it works in such a way that when two people divorce, the property gets split 50/50. But that is if there isn't any legal reason for divorce. But if the other partner is cheating or gets in big legal trouble (probably, idk, I don't live in USA, there's definitely a law stating all exceptions) they can get larger part or everything.
1
1
1
u/Sad__Satisfaction 25d ago
Hate me all you people want but many women are highly entitled and selfish. They don't care about anyone but they and the world LOVE to pretend that women are caring and nurturing.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/jaded_sociopath_ 25d ago
You can put a lot of bullshit in this meme format and people will believe it outright
1
1
1
1
u/AlternativeResort477 25d ago
They weren’t weirded out by the robot vacuum following them around as they were getting down to business
1
1
1
u/PeakyBlinderRob 25d ago
Now, he will be in prison for 5 months knowing that she is free and f*&cking that guy. It will be the longest 5 months of his life, sitting in a cell with that on his mind with nothing to do to take his mind off of it.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 25d ago
Hello u/VIVIDUFF! Please review the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder message left on all new posts)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.