A man in Taiwan has been sentenced to prison time after using a robot vacuum cleaner to gather evidence of his wife’s affair. The man, whose name was not disclosed in media reports, used a smart vacuum cleaner to secretly record his wife’s extra-marital affair.
He has now been fined over $4,700 and sentenced to jail for invading his wife’s privacy, South China Morning Post reported.
Context to the case
The man and his wife tied the knot in 2021, according to media reports cited by SCMP. The man sought $68,000 in damages. The court ruled that the wife and her lover must pay the man NT$500,000 ($15,700) in compensation. The husband was ultimately sentenced to five months in prison and fined NT$150,000 (USD 4,700 or INR 4.4 lakh) for unlawfully recording private images. (Also read: Wife catches husband cheating, tries to rent him to mistress for ₹ 85,000 per month )
They lived with the man’s parents after getting married. The couple also had a holiday home which they visited occasionally. During one such trip to the holiday home, the man discovered a used toothbrush that made him suspicious. The man then reviewed surveillance footage which showed an unknown man driving his wife home. Three months later, he used a mobile application to remotely activate a robot vacuum cleaner in the holiday home. He claimed that he was planning to use its built-in audio feature to speak with his wife. However, the vacuum cleaner’s video captured his wife in an intimate position with another man. The husband recorded the footage, hoping to later use it as evidence. The husband recorded footage of his wife embracing the other man and walking around the house unclothed in his presence. Using the footage as evidence, he sued his wife and her lover for infringing on his marital rights. However, the ruling did not prevent his wife from counter-suing. She accused the man of infringing on her privacy by recording her without her consent. The man argued that the video had already been accepted as evidence by the civil court and that his actions were “legally justified. The court, however, rejected this argument, holding that marital obligations do not override an individual’s right to privacy. It found that the recording had been made intentionally.
The court also said that the robot vacuum’s lights or voice alerts were not enough to prove that the wife knew she was being recorded or had consented to the footage being captured.
