Laws that prohibit secretly recording someone can apply to devices like robot vacuums, even though such recordings can still be used in court. In September 2023, a man in Taiwan suspected his wife of having an affair. He discovered a used toothbrush at their holiday home and saw on garage video an unfamiliar man driving his wife there. Three months later, he accessed the live feed from their robot vacuum’s app and observed an intimate encounter. He recorded the footage and later used it to claim about $16,000 from his wife and her lover for violating his marital rights. However, the Taoyuan District Court sentenced him to five months in jail and fined him roughly $4,700 for secretly recording private activity without consent. Modern robot vacuums are more than just cleaning tools. Some models include cameras, microphones, and laser navigation, and can be accessed remotely through apps. These devices may also generate detailed maps and cleaning logs, and their data can be sent to the manufacturers’ servers. In 2022, MIT Technology Review revealed that images from a development version of iRobot’s Roomba J7, including a woman on a toilet, had been shared with a data-labeling contractor. These images were later posted in private social media groups, not through hacking but via the normal process used to train the device’s object-recognition software. Courts have long grappled with the use of data from household devices in legal cases. In Arkansas, prosecutors sought recordings from an Amazon Echo and smart-meter data after a friend died in a hot tub, but the case was dropped due to lack of conclusive evidence. In Connecticut, Richard Dabate was convicted of murdering his wife, in part because her Fitbit data contradicted his timeline. The state’s highest court upheld the conviction, finding the Fitbit data scientifically reliable. In Ohio, Ross Compton’s pacemaker data was used to question his account of a house fire, raising new questions about the privacy of medical data from implanted devices. The court allowed the data to be used, citing probable cause. Key issues in such cases include consent and notice. The wife in the Taiwan case argued that the robot vacuum’s indicator lights did not provide enough warning, a concern that applies to guests, children, and other household members. Unlike a fixed security camera, a mobile device like a robot vacuum can record people who never saw its privacy policy. Another issue is the difference between legality and admissibility in court. The Fourth Amendment generally does not prevent evidence obtained by private individuals, even if it was collected without consent. This principle was established in a 1921 Supreme Court case. Courts must then determine whether the video was recorded, where it was stored, and whether it was altered—factors that go beyond whether the video appears authentic. Laws for audio communications differ from those for video. The federal Wiretap Act of 1968 makes illegally intercepted audio communications inadmissible in court and can lead to liability for the interceptor. However, this law does not cover silent video, so camera-only recordings fall outside its scope. This means that liability and admissibility depend on state laws, which vary widely. Courts have also debated whether one spouse can legally record another at home. While some courts have allowed it, most have rejected the idea, making the issue complicated further with the use of devices like robot vacuums. Reliability is another concern. Consumer devices are not designed for legal scrutiny, and their data—like timestamps and firmware changes—can be hard to interpret. In the Dabate case, Fitbit data was challenged on reliability grounds but was admitted after expert review. As new devices emerge, similar questions arise. Experts recommend validated methods for acquiring and interpreting device data, as outlined by the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence. Consumers would benefit from clearer information about what devices record and how the data is handled. Federal regulators already encourage clear disclosures and data minimization for connected products. These principles could be applied to remote viewing, rather than being hidden in service agreements. Manufacturers could also provide exportable logs showing when remote access occurred and whether the camera or microphone was active. Standards for vehicle event data offer a model for consistent records and retrieval. These measures could help ensure that data is trustworthy and usable in court. Legislators could address the growing issue of intimate surveillance by creating clear rules to prevent confusion and misuse. Funding for research and standards could help ensure that courts accept digital evidence because it is validated, not just because it looks precise. The robot vacuum in the Taiwan case did what it was designed to do: monitor a room and report to the user. The legal system then had to adapt to the unexpected evidentiary power of such devices. As more devices enter homes, lawmakers will need to decide what these robots can record, who can use the recordings, and what they can prove in court.