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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @07:00PM 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.

49 of 103 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The streaming site had more than 4,000 members... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 19:03 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
Imagine paying for a live stream... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 19:21 · Score: 2, Funny

...only to find some business suit clad paper pusher with thick glasses sitting at a desk in the room processing legal documents all night.
1. Re:Imagine paying for a live stream... by bobstreo · 2019-03-20 19:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ...only to find some business suit clad paper pusher with thick glasses sitting at a desk in the room processing legal documents all night.
  Rule 34
2. Re:Imagine paying for a live stream... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Huawei 5G capability, coming to a hairdryer/bidet or powerpoint near you. Wah I was made fun of for my comb over swoop.
3. Re: Imagine paying for a live stream... by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's fetish material in certain circles..
4. Re:Imagine paying for a live stream... by ItsJustAPseudonym · 2019-03-21 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Rule 34
  "War is good for business."
  
  Not to be confused with rule 35.
Re:The streaming site had more than 4,000 members. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 19:38 · Score: 1

I get Slashdot for free and it includes the ability to replay certain sentences
Caveat emtpor by Freischutz · 2019-03-20 19:50 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
1. Re: Caveat emtpor by Freischutz · 2019-03-20 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Rule 34?
  More like Area 51.
2. Re: Caveat emtpor by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps that was the original idea behind Furries...
3. Re: Caveat emtpor by DontBeAMoran · 2019-03-21 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Area FurryOne.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
4. Re: Caveat emtpor by Freischutz · 2019-03-21 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  The outrage is hilarious. As though this hasn't been seen many times before. Seriously What the hell, just check your surroundings and you should be able to figure out if you're being watched most of the time pretty quick. Who would pay for these random videos anyway? I bet it's mostly really long hugs.
  But I like the soft fluffiness of the Sasquatch fur so much ...
5. Re: Caveat emtpor by Freischutz · 2019-03-21 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Area FurryOne.
  Hehe ...
6. Re: Caveat emtpor by Pascoea · 2019-03-21 03:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Seriously What the hell, just check your surroundings and you should be able to figure out if you're being watched most of the time pretty quick.
  Yeah, no. I've sold/installed cameras for legitimate businesses. It's not hard at all to hide cameras that you won't find unless you start taking devices apart. Smoke detectors come to mind as a quick way to go about it. Anything that already has power running to it is a great target.
  
  Who would pay for these random videos anyway?
  This is the biggest tragedy, these dumbasses are getting busted for $6000. They only got less than 1% to sign up? That's a horrible effort.
  
  I bet it's mostly really long hugs.
  Yeah. For the most part it's going to be pretty boring. But I know what I've done in hotel rooms... I'm the only one, and I can't believe I'm the most "adventurous" one either. There's a lot of voyeurs out there that would pay good money for this kind of crap.
7. Re:Caveat emtpor by Freischutz · 2019-03-21 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I always run around my hotel room wearing a full body Sasquatch suit.
  I hear that "Sasquatch Hotel Vacation" is the most repeated live stream in South Korea, particularly the hair drying scene.
  Are you brave enough to hit Google image search with the term: 'Sasquatch porn'?
8. Re:Caveat emtpor by rlitman · 2019-03-21 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re:Caveat emtpor by antdude · 2019-03-21 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  For me, I run around naked with my fat body so viewers get turned off! ;)
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Links by Teun · 2019-03-20 20:02 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
1. Re: Links by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-21 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Being forced against your will to participate in pornography is sexual assault. Legally I mean, depending on the jurisdiction of course. Mental injury is considered equivalent to physical injury for some crimes, in the same way that mental illness is considered as real and serious as physical illness by many legal systems.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re: Links by Pascoea · 2019-03-21 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  You could actually look into it instead of just being a dickhead... In this case, you are correct, it's not criminal assault in the couple of links I looked through. But it's still a criminal offense. Appears to land you 3-5 years of getting assaulted in prison.
  NY says its a crime
  Toronto agrees
3. Re: Links by stealth_finger · 2019-03-21 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Being forced against your will to participate in pornography is sexual assault.
  Is this only the people having actual sex in those rooms or are you counting everyone?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
4. Re:Links by null+etc. · 2019-03-21 04:41 · Score: 2
  
  Pleas links to the streams or it didn't happen :)
  That will be $44.95, please.
5. Re: Links by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-21 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Softcore porn, as in nudity designed to arouse, e.g. Playboy, is still porn. At least in the eyes of most legal systems.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:So let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 20:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Slashdot obviously signed up for the replay feature.
Slashdot can't afford editors who can read by gavron · 2019-03-20 20:53 · Score: 2

> 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 indicate "I can't be bothered to read anyone else's comment. Nobody else would have the insight I do. Let me just post my opinion because my insight is so important."
Time to hire editors that read... or CLOSE UP SHOP.
E
1. Re:Slashdot can't afford editors who can read by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 23:10 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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.
2. Re:Slashdot can't afford editors who can read by sconeu · 2019-03-21 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Seems like a lot of effort and risk by DrXym · 2019-03-20 21:39 · Score: 1

All that work and they netted a whopping $6000.
1. Re:Seems like a lot of effort and risk by Hodr · 2019-03-21 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Seems like a lot of effort and risk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
Replay? by necro81 · 2019-03-20 23:58 · Score: 1

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 by coofercat · 2019-03-21 00:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re: Looking for cameras by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, just bring your own wallpaper.
2. Re:Looking for cameras by Whorhay · 2019-03-21 01:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
3. Re:Looking for cameras by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-21 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Is that the CCD reflecting or the IR filter? And does the same apply to IR sensitive cameras?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
4. Re:Looking for cameras by Pascoea · 2019-03-21 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  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 actually works, but you could try this https://www.spytec.com/xb-68-r...
5. Re:Looking for cameras by Matheus · 2019-03-21 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  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...
6. Re:Looking for cameras by Whorhay · 2019-03-21 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  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 effective use in the dark. Most digital cameras that I have ever seen worked in the infrared to some degree and the CCD is not going to be perfectly black and so reflect IR back through the lenses. You can actually test this with whatever random digital camera you have available, point a typical IR TV remote control at the lens and press some buttons. You should be able to see some flashes of light in the camera picture. The IR reflected through a lens looks distinctly different than a reflection off of pretty much anything else. If you've ever seen an animals eyes reflecting back at you from the dark you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about.
7. Re:Looking for cameras by J053 · 2019-03-21 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  LMGTFY.
  Seriously, they're like $15USD
8. Re:Looking for cameras by Can'tNot · 2019-03-21 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  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... by gachunt · 2019-03-21 01:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Hotels should install cameras in each room with round-the-clock monitoring, so they can ensure no one installs any cameras in their rooms.
1. Re:The logical next step... by Wulf2k · 2019-03-21 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  You can say that again.
Re:This is new... by DontBeAMoran · 2019-03-21 01:48 · Score: 1

All that's left is getting dupes in the freakin' title.

--
#DeleteFacebook
At 6000 dollars revenue by SirSmiley · 2019-03-21 03:38 · Score: 1

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.
Re:The streaming site had more than 4,000 members. by raftpeople · 2019-03-21 05:57 · Score: 1

Great post but I'm still left wondering, how many members? And how much did they pay for extra features?
Free hotel rooms for exhibitionists by MooseTick · 2019-03-21 06:05 · Score: 1

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.

--
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Re:The streaming site had more than 4,000 members. by ntropia · 2019-03-21 06:29 · Score: 1

Apparently, you're one of them
List of hotels this happened in? by modi123 · 2019-03-21 06:39 · Score: 1

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.".
For free! by tmh+-+The+Mad+Hacker · 2019-03-22 04:16 · Score: 1

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