Man uses robot vacuum to catch cheating wife, wins $16,000 affair case, then gets jailed for secretly filming her

[QuaZulu]

Somewhere a Roomba product manager is quietly deleting "Detect Infidelity" from the 2027 feature roadmap.

They should be thinking, "Remove cameras from vacuums." Period.

 

[Tantor]

Just proves to me, women are all ho's...

True. Read Schopenhaur's essay on women. He makes a reasonable case that women are natural 'hoes' and that is the primary occupation of all women.

"Women think in their hearts the destiny of men to be to earn money, while their own is to get through it, if possible during the lifetime of the man, at all events after his death. That the man gives over to them his
earnings for housekeeping, strengthens them in this belief."

Young men are incredibly ill informed about the real nature of women. Society tells them that men and women are the same. They should be required to read Schopenhauer out of sheer self defense. I also recommend they read Anton Chekhov's short stories that focus on women. Like "The Princess".

 

[slyrabbit]

I have not heard the term 'Pyrrhic victory' in years. Nice to see a journalist with a broad vocabulary.

 

[mbk34]

You know things have gone wrong somewhere in your marriage when you're trying to communicate with your wife via a robot vacuum cleaner.

 

[BadThad]

We have similar laws in the USA. However, IMHO, it is absolute government overreach that anyone who legally resides in a home can face jail time for recording inside their own living space on a device they own.

The government shouldn't have the power to outlaw documenting physical reality under your own roof. Recording data is often a baseline requirement for speech and legal defense—banning the collection of information is a direct hit to the First Amendment.

The law should stick to regulating what is DONE with data, not the act of recording it:

* Illegal: Uploading intimate footage to social media, public leaking, or blackmail.

* (should be) Legal: Capturing footage within your own legal residence for private knowledge or legal evidence.

Treating a lawful resident like a criminal for simply documenting what happens in their own home is insane. Criminalizing the collection, rather than punishing the actual misuse, of data is just wrong.

Cohabitation with another person inherently reduces privacy compared to the outside world. When you live with someone, it is a daily reality that they might catch you in a compromised position. Because cohabitation automatically erodes an absolute expectation of privacy, it shouldn't be backed by felony state sanctions.

Perceived violations between two individuals should be handled strictly via civil torts, not criminal state regulation. The state should only step in when such data is weaponized, intentionally disseminated, or improperly safeguarded.

Exactly! Taiwan has crazy laws and courts.

 

[user556]

In my mind, it's not worth all the nonsense. To know what happened is enough to walk away, and is compensation enough.

Yes. Honesty is the best remedy. The first court case should never have happened. He got off lightly for being such an *** about it.

 

[user556]

You know things have gone wrong somewhere in your marriage when you're trying to communicate with your wife via a robot vacuum cleaner.

Or a lawyer.

 

[Darth Shiv]

So if some one breaks into your house in Taiwan and you bust them with your robot feed, they can counter sue you as well? Sounds like the American way.

That's not what happened though - you are fabricating a situation that didn't happen in this case and pretend they are the same thing.

If he didn't use the recording in court and busted them another way he would have been fine.

 

[stewi0001]

That's not what happened though - you are fabricating a situation that didn't happen in this case and pretend they are the same thing.

If he didn't use the recording in court and busted them another way he would have been fine.

I am making 2 points:
1. It should not be illegal in monitoring your own property.
2. I have heard of instances of wrong doers trying to counter those that stop them. Example I knew a guy that used to be a bank guard. He injured someone who tried to rob the bank. That robber tried to sue him for their injuries.

 

[Darth Shiv]

I am making 2 points:
1. It should not be illegal in monitoring your own property.
2. I have heard of instances of wrong doers trying to counter those that stop them. Example I knew a guy that used to be a bank guard. He injured someone who tried to rob the bank. That robber tried to sue him for their injuries.

1. Your wife is a legal occupant of the property and as such has a right to privacy in their own home. You cannot video them legally without consent and especially without them even knowing. Generally speaking this is a very reasonable thing. Perverts etc setup hidden cams to surveil people in that person's residence. That is obviously not legal right?
2. The robber TRIED to sue. In a decent country that case would get thrown out.

The moment we look at the nuance of each point/argument it's pretty clear what is reasonable and why and the hysteria and bad faith arguments are easy to pull apart.

 

[stewi0001]

1. Your wife is a legal occupant of the property and as such has a right to privacy in their own home. You cannot video them legally without consent and especially without them even knowing. Generally speaking this is a very reasonable thing. Perverts etc setup hidden cams to surveil people in that person's residence. That is obviously not legal right?
2. The robber TRIED to sue. In a decent country that case would get thrown out.

The moment we look at the nuance of each point/argument it's pretty clear what is reasonable and why and the hysteria and bad faith arguments are easy to pull apart.

1. it sounds like we are at an impasse on part of this.
2. be glad you don't live in America

 

[TempleOrion]

Just proves to me, women are all ho's...

Funnily enough, that's what all Incel losers say...

 

[TempleOrion]

True. Read Schopenhaur's essay on women. He makes a reasonable case that women are natural 'hoes' and that is the primary occupation of all women.

"Women think in their hearts the destiny of men to be to earn money, while their own is to get through it, if possible during the lifetime of the man, at all events after his death. That the man gives over to them his
earnings for housekeeping, strengthens them in this belief."

Young men are incredibly ill informed about the real nature of women. Society tells them that men and women are the same. They should be required to read Schopenhauer out of sheer self defense. I also recommend they read Anton Chekhov's short stories that focus on women. Like "The Princess".

Rightrash testo-fuelled pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t won't get you laid, sunshine LMAO

And people wonder why the birth rate is crashing... what woman would want to procreate with Neanderthal morons such as yourself?

 

[Win7user]

Rightrash testo-fuelled pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t won't get you laid, sunshine LMAO

And people wonder why the birth rate is crashing... what woman would want to procreate with Neanderthal morons such as yourself?

Yeah, but their still Ho's ...

 

[McRuff]

We have similar laws in the USA. However, IMHO, it is absolute government overreach that anyone who legally resides in a home can face jail time for recording inside their own living space on a device they own.

The government shouldn't have the power to outlaw documenting physical reality under your own roof. Recording data is often a baseline requirement for speech and legal defense—banning the collection of information is a direct hit to the First Amendment.

The law should stick to regulating what is DONE with data, not the act of recording it:

* Illegal: Uploading intimate footage to social media, public leaking, or blackmail.

* (should be) Legal: Capturing footage within your own legal residence for private knowledge or legal evidence.

Treating a lawful resident like a criminal for simply documenting what happens in their own home is insane. Criminalizing the collection, rather than punishing the actual misuse, of data is just wrong.

Cohabitation with another person inherently reduces privacy compared to the outside world. When you live with someone, it is a daily reality that they might catch you in a compromised position. Because cohabitation automatically erodes an absolute expectation of privacy, it shouldn't be backed by felony state sanctions.

Perceived violations between two individuals should be handled strictly via civil torts, not criminal state regulation. The state should only step in when such data is weaponized, intentionally disseminated, or improperly safeguarded.

If you have any children I would advise against any parent letting their children visit your house let alone have a sleepover. "Capturing footage within your own legal residence for private knowledge" is a pretty vile standard that you think (should be) legal.

 

[JMGuy]

If you have any children I would advise against any parent letting their children visit your house let alone have a sleepover. "Capturing footage within your own legal residence for private knowledge" is a pretty vile standard that you think (should be) legal.

Well, that’s a vile and sickening distortion of my post.

My argument was strictly about protecting citizens from state overreach. To twist a philosophical debate about constitutional overreach and home security into a baseless implication about children is truly disgusting.

I explicitly stated that the misuse and weaponization of data should be strictly punished. Your leap to this accusation says a lot more about your own mind than it does about my comment.

 

[McRuff]

Well, that’s a vile and sickening distortion of my post.

My argument was strictly about protecting citizens from state overreach. To twist a philosophical debate about constitutional overreach and home security into a baseless implication about children is truly disgusting.

I explicitly stated that the misuse and weaponization of data should be strictly punished. Your leap to this accusation says a lot more about your own mind than it does about my comment.

No Misquote. This is what you said.
"The law should stick to regulating what is DONE with data, not the act of recording it:

* Illegal: Uploading intimate footage to social media, public leaking, or blackmail.

* (should be) Legal: Capturing footage within your own legal residence for private knowledge or legal evidence."

Your standard means that you want to record anything in your legal residence as long as it is for your own private knowledge. Fortunately the law does not agree with you and that it why it is a crime.

 

[JMGuy]

No Misquote. This is what you said.
"The law should stick to regulating what is DONE with data, not the act of recording it:

* Illegal: Uploading intimate footage to social media, public leaking, or blackmail.

* (should be) Legal: Capturing footage within your own legal residence for private knowledge or legal evidence."

Your standard means that you want to record anything in your legal residence as long as it is for your own private knowledge. Fortunately the law does not agree with you and that it why it is a crime.

It’s sad you think re-quoting me somehow changes the fact that you are executing a vile, bad-faith twist of my words.

It is quite clear that the foundational concepts of mens rea and property rights reside far outside the boundaries of your current conceptual horizon. Your poorly crafted, desperate attempt to vindicate a clearly repulsive smear by re-pasting my text does nothing other than highlight an inability to parse basic syntax.

To synthesize a monstrous implication out of a standard constitutional argument against state overreach requires a level of bad-faith desperation that is nothing short of contemptible.

Frankly, it’s unfortunate you seem to lack the capacity for respectable debate or rational discussion. Rather, you’ve opted for a grotesque distortion that proves only an approach of this specific, substandard caliber could ever be viewed as a decent perspective—a toxic exercise in psychological projection that belongs back in the intellectual gutter from which it emerged.

We’re done. Feel free to continue to indulge these delusions by assuming any further responses constitute anything other than the hollow machinations of a failed argument.