Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime Privacy The Internet

1,600 Korean Hotel Guests Were Secretly Filmed and Live-Streamed Online (cnn.com) 103

Posted by BeauHD from the creepy-is-an-understatement dept.
dryriver shares a report from CNN: About 1,600 people have been secretly filmed in hotel rooms in South Korea, with the footage live-streamed online for paying customers to watch, police said Wednesday. Two men have been arrested and another pair investigated in connection with the scandal, which involved 42 rooms in 30 accommodations in 10 cities around the country. Police said there was no indication the businesses were complicit in the scheme. Cameras were hidden inside digital TV boxes, wall sockets and hairdryer holders and the footage was streamed online, the Cyber Investigation Department at the National Police Agency said in a statement. The streaming site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams. The site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams. Between November 2018 and this month, police said, the service brought in upward of $6,000.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1,600 Korean Hotel Guests Were Secretly Filmed and Live-Streamed Online More

1,600 Korean Hotel Guests Were Secretly Filmed and Live-Streamed Online

Comments Filter:

  • The streaming site had more than 4,000 members... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21, 2019 @02:03AM (#58308590)

    The streaming site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams. The site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams. The streaming site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams. The site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams.

    The streaming site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams. The site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I get Slashdot for free and it includes the ability to replay certain sentences

    • Great post but I'm still left wondering, how many members? And how much did they pay for extra features?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ntropia ( 939502 )
      Apparently, you're one of them

  • Imagine paying for a live stream... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...only to find some business suit clad paper pusher with thick glasses sitting at a desk in the room processing legal documents all night.

  • Caveat emtpor (Score:5, Funny)

    by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Thursday March 21, 2019 @02:50AM (#58308668)

    About 1,600 people have been secretly filmed in hotel rooms in South Korea, with the footage live-streamed online for paying customers to watch, police said Wednesday

    This is why I always run around my hotel room wearing a full body Sasquatch suit.

    • Perhaps that was the original idea behind Furries...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rlitman ( 911048 )
      That's why I always wear my full body Sasquatch suit underneath my clothing. I just have to be careful when going out naked in the woods to stay away from hunters and always make sure any photographers don't focus on me.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      For me, I run around naked with my fat body so viewers get turned off! ;)

  • The site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams? Why didn't you mention it at least twice to make that understood?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Slashdot obviously signed up for the replay feature.

    • That may be true, but I heard the site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams.

  • Links (Score:4, Funny)

    by Teun ( 17872 ) on Thursday March 21, 2019 @03:02AM (#58308694)
    Pleas links to the streams or it didn't happen :)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's all been scrubbed, except from the dark corners of the net that you can't simply link to. These are videos of people being sexually assaulted, obviously any normal site is going to remove them as soon as they are alerted.

    • Pleas links to the streams or it didn't happen :)

      That will be $44.95, please.

  • > The streaming site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams. The site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams

    Can you repeat this again?

    Slashdot, once you were great. Now you can't afford editors who read. What's next, removing users who read? Oh wait, that's already there. 2000 comments on posts i

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Had the editors been able to read, they could have mentioned that the streaming site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )

        Are you sure about that? Because I heard that the streaming site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams.

    • And we didn't even have to pay the $44.95!

  • All that work and they netted a whopping $6000.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hodr ( 219920 )

      That $6k has to be a typo. If they have 97 members paying $44.95 a month, then they were making over $4k a month (at least at the time they were caught). So even if the other 3900 members never paid anything, two months should have put them at a higher number.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If they have 97 members paying $44.95 a month, ...

        Where did you get those numbers? I didn't see them anywhere in the summary.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Pascoea ( 968200 )

          If they have 97 members paying $44.95 a month, ...

          Where did you get those numbers? I didn't see them anywhere in the summary.

          If this is a joke, it's well played. If this isn't a joke, holy shit.

  • The streaming site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams. The site had more than 4,000 members, 97 of whom paid a $44.95 monthly fee to access extra features, such as the ability to replay certain live streams.

    Replaying the sentence that talks about replaying live streams? I see what you did there.

  • Looking for cameras (Score:5, Interesting)

    by coofercat ( 719737 ) on Thursday March 21, 2019 @07:53AM (#58309434) Homepage Journal

    Does this mean we should look for cameras in our hotel rooms, or trust that the hotel owner did it for us already? How do you actually find such cameras?

    Absolutely seriously, how could you check into a hotel room and have any confidence it has no cameras in it? Even if you look for them, and even if you find a couple, how would you know you've got them all? I guess if I found one, I'd probably check out immediately in a huff, but then maybe just right into another hotel room that had better hidden cameras.

    This isn't really anything new, but I guess the prevalence of 'spy cameras' on Amazon/ebay mean that the last people in the room might have bugged it for whomever comes in next. That's a little different from the room being bugged specifically for errant would-be presidents or whatever.

    • No, just bring your own wallpaper.

    • Re:Looking for cameras (Score:5, Informative)

      by Whorhay ( 1319089 ) on Thursday March 21, 2019 @08:35AM (#58309660)

      You can look for the shine of the CCD using a camera that can see in the IR spectrum and a bright directional IR light. Pan the camera and IR light around together in any suspect areas. Any bright reflective spots should get close scrutiny, especially if they are pin points on an otherwise non-reflective surface.

      • Is that the CCD reflecting or the IR filter? And does the same apply to IR sensitive cameras?

        • From what I understand it is actually the CCD that is reflecting the IR. If there is an IR filter on the camera then you would probably get a reflection off of that unless it is actually completely absorbing the IR. If the filter is in front of the lens it might not stand out against the background but it would probably still look different to some degree. That said it is very unlikely that you'd find a camera that is being used for voyeurism with an IR filter since that would mean it couldn't be setup for

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 )

      Basically anything that has power is a good place to look. I realize there are battery powered ones, but they aren't going to be of much use unless it's an inside job. And like others have suggested, start with things that have a good vantage point to the bed and the bathroom.

      If you're really that paranoid about it, I'd take a look around the usual Chinese product sites for hidden cameras. That should give you an idea of what people are buying, and hence what to look for in your room.

      No idea if it actual

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Matheus ( 586080 )

      This or a concept like this has been the main plot point of so many movies I don't see how anyone can stay in a "space they don't control" and truly believe they enjoy any true expectation of privacy. These activities are already illegal and that clearly doesn't stop anyone so my expectation is that it probably happening whether I like it or not.

      IMHO close enough to the "I uploaded my stuff to the internet and Oh Noes! someone else got access to it!"

      There is no privacy. There is no security. Move along...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by J053 ( 673094 )

      LMGTFY [lmgtfy.com].

      Seriously, they're like $15USD

    • Well given how unprofitable this business seems to be, I wouldn't worry too much. $6,000 in five months, minus the costs of 42 cameras, paying for hotel accommodations, hosting... This is a very involved scheme, given how truly ineffective it was.

  • The logical next step... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gachunt ( 4485797 ) on Thursday March 21, 2019 @08:28AM (#58309622)
    Hotels should install cameras in each room with round-the-clock monitoring, so they can ensure no one installs any cameras in their rooms.
  • for 40 cameras...he probably lost a shit load of money operating this not to mention the jail time. 40 cameras with internet connections would not be cheap.

  • I'm surprised there aren't hotels that offer free rooms to people who allow cameras to watch them. They get to be exhibitionists, pervs get to watch them, and hotels make money. Its a win win win.

  • Has anyone come across a list of the hotels this happened in? All I see is "42 rooms in 30 accommodations in 10 cities around the country.".

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close