BEWARE: Shocking Privacy Violation in Singapore Caught

[landlordfromhell]

The underwear bit is more than enough to get police's attention! Did you even show them the video?

Why? This was not a public place and if nobody was around he could have been walking fully naked and this would be of nobody's business.

Actually in any typical civilized country publishing of these videos and his name would push OP in a mile deep s**t worth definitely more than these 3k of deposit so OP, if you are talking already to some lawyers ensure you can safely get away with the youtube videos.

This may not be a public place, but this is my room which I rented and am entitled to full privacy and peaceful enjoyment rights. That means no landlord or anyone else should be allowed in my room without my permission. Plus, this was not a hidden toilet camera, so I don't think the recording is illegal in any sort of way, though in Singapore, you never really know.

Naked or not, let me turn around and ask you, would you like it if your male landlord came to your room while you are at work, parading naked and going through your private belongings? Even worse, sleeping on your bed and leaving stains?

I believe I am doing sg a favor by letting potential tenants know about this sickening incident. The truth is, this landlord is highly disturbed.

[landlordfromhell]

He owes me about 3 grands according to the order of tribunal.

The enforcement options are expensive on top of what he owes me already.

Check out on the SCT webpage, they have a very comprehensive FAQ about all the bailiff's matters and IIRC at the point you obtain the court order allowing the bailiff to proceed you may ask the court to charge the bailiff's (and related) expenses from what will be seized from the debtor. I would take it at least to that stage what will cost you probably $50 (IIRC). If the judge will not agree to charge it from him then it is probably not worth going further.
Lawyers judge the case also if not predominantly from how much they could get perspective so it may not be worth for them to get engaged but still worth for you if you do it by yourself.

Looked at the seizure and sale option. Sure, the judge will agree to charge the debtor, but it's always the creditor that has to pay the bailiff's deposit first. It's simply too expensive. Plus, if they seize his car, how are they gonna sell it? First of all, the car keys belong to the landlord and I don't think he will hand over the keys to the bailiff. Most of the time, the landlord is not home.

[x9200]

Did he sleep in your bed and stained it? You did not mention this and judging from your rage you would if this was true. Whatever made you upset whether he was naked or not is secondary and truly not of your business. Calling a man pervert just because he was in his pants only alone in an apartment actually puts a question mark on your credibility. And if he really did some more things you should have said it earlier, you know we don't have here a crystal ball.

Recording is not illegal - publishing most likely is.

[offshoreoildude]

Actually in any typical civilized country publishing of these videos and his name would push OP in a mile deep s**t worth definitely more than these 3k of deposit so OP, if you are talking already to some lawyers ensure you can safely get away with the youtube videos.

Defamation / slander? Not really - his defense is 'truth'.
Invasion of privacy? Illegal recording? Not sure - I'm not that up to speed with Singapore's laws in that regard but there have been a number of prosecutions for use of hidden cameras in toilets and the such.

In EU it would be:
1. A major violation of privacy
2. This I don't know the English term but you can not publish a photo of a private person if this person is part of a main subject of the image and is recognizable in the image. It's a category falling under privacy protection but covered under IP law.

I don't think recording it is the problem, broadcasting it on youtube might be.

[landlordfromhell]

Did he sleep in your bed and stained it? You did not mention this and judging from your rage you would if this was true. Whatever made you upset whether he was naked or not is secondary and truly not of your business. Calling a man pervert just because he was in his pants only alone in an apartment actually puts a question mark on your credibility. And if he really did some more things you should have said it earlier, you know we don't have here a crystal ball.

Recording is not illegal - publishing most likely is.

Can't believe I am speaking to a wall. Ignore.

[landlordfromhell]

Defamation / slander? Not really - his defense is 'truth'.
Invasion of privacy? Illegal recording? Not sure - I'm not that up to speed with Singapore's laws in that regard but there have been a number of prosecutions for use of hidden cameras in toilets and the such.

In EU it would be:
1. A major violation of privacy
2. This I don't know the English term but you can not publish a photo of a private person if this person is part of a main subject of the image and is recognizable in the image. It's a category falling under privacy protection but covered under IP law.

I don't think recording it is the problem, broadcasting it on youtube might be.

Prove it.

[offshoreoildude]

Did he sleep in your bed and stained it? You did not mention this and judging from your rage you would if this was true. Whatever made you upset whether he was naked or not is secondary and truly not of your business. Calling a man pervert just because he was in his pants only alone in an apartment actually puts a question mark on your credibility. And if he really did some more things you should have said it earlier, you know we don't have here a crystal ball.

Recording is not illegal - publishing most likely is.

Can't believe I am speaking to a wall. Ignore.

We all get that you're upset. You've been given some good advice for free. Now rather than insulting us, why don't you answer our questions clearly so we can help you? Otherwise go home to whatever third world shithole you came from.

[offshoreoildude]

In EU it would be:
1. A major violation of privacy
2. This I don't know the English term but you can not publish a photo of a private person if this person is part of a main subject of the image and is recognizable in the image. It's a category falling under privacy protection but covered under IP law.

I don't think recording it is the problem, broadcasting it on youtube might be.

Prove it.

Start with this.

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/Econ ... l#section6

You've injured your LL economic interests. He may counter sue, can you afford to defend yourself?

Read the Defamation act and then come back.

[x9200]

I don't think recording it is the problem, broadcasting it on youtube might be.

Prove it.

Why he or anyone else would bother? This is yours and only yours problem. You don't believe in it, fine and good luck.

[landlordfromhell]

Did he sleep in your bed and stained it? You did not mention this and judging from your rage you would if this was true. Whatever made you upset whether he was naked or not is secondary and truly not of your business. Calling a man pervert just because he was in his pants only alone in an apartment actually puts a question mark on your credibility. And if he really did some more things you should have said it earlier, you know we don't have here a crystal ball.

Recording is not illegal - publishing most likely is.

Can't believe I am speaking to a wall. Ignore.

We all get that you're upset. You've been given some good advice for free. Now rather than insulting us, why don't you answer our questions clearly so we can help you? Otherwise go home to whatever third world shithole you came from.

Third world shithole? Oh, you've gone way too far you freak idiot shit head. Why don't you go back to your mama and suck her clit you whinning bastard.

[offshoreoildude]

BTW - if you're a woman you have a much better chance of success. You could claim your modesty has been offended.

[landlordfromhell]

I don't think recording it is the problem, broadcasting it on youtube might be.

Prove it.

Why he or anyone else would bother? This is yours and only yours problem. You don't believe in it, fine and good luck.

If you guys don't bother, why reply? you are very funny.

[x9200]

landlordfromhell, offshoreoildude, please... do not get the discussion to the ad personam level. Both of you.

Moderator

[offshoreoildude]

landlordfromhell, offshoreoildude, please... do not get the discussion to the ad personam level. Both of you.

Moderator

No problem - I'm sure we'll read about our young friend in the press soon enough when he's sued for MF.

SECTION 6 MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD

The Cause of Action

21.6.1 A person is liable for malicious falsehood if he or she maliciously makes false representations in respect of another with a view to injure that person’s goodwill or economic reputation.

21.6.2 The tort of malicious falsehood may, in some respects, overlap with the tort of defamation (see Section 7 below). However, these two torts are clearly distinct. In particular, the tort of malicious falsehood is founded on (a) false representations, (b) malicious motives, and (c) the complainant’s incurrence of special damage, but none of these is a necessary element of the tort of defamation.

[x9200]

Prove it.

Why he or anyone else would bother? This is yours and only yours problem. You don't believe in it, fine and good luck.

If you guys don't bother, why reply? you are very funny.

Because in principle we want to help but as with everything it has its limits and its rights. If you are turning like this the limits are already behind and the principle is you should clarify doubts. I earlier suggested to you to verify it with your lawyers. Sorry, I am not going to pay mine to do this for you. Ultimately and again, whether you like it or not it is your and not our problem.