China Reels as Telegram Chat Group Shares Hidden-Camera Footage of Women and Children
Encrypted Telegram channels such as “MaskPark Treehole Forum” are accused of hosting thousands of non-consensual videos and images, triggering online outrage and legal scrutiny.
In July and August 2025, revelations emerged that a Chinese-language Telegram group, known as “MaskPark Treehole Forum,” hosted hundreds of thousands of members who shared non-consensual intimate images and hidden-camera footage of women—and in some cases, children.
The group, initially formed in 2021 and dismantled at the end of 2024 after amassing over 300,000 subscribers, resurfaced in March 2025 and rapidly regained traction on the encrypted platform.
Sub-groups were organised by themes such as “female classmates and coworkers,” “lingerie,” and “brides trying on dresses.”
Offenders circulated secretly recorded material filmed in public spaces such as subways, university dormitories, fitting rooms, bathrooms, and private residences, using concealed devices like pinhole cameras disguised as screws, electrical outlets, incense holders, oil diffusers, and other everyday objects.
An increasing number of victims came forward, disclosing that private images and videos—some of them taken during intimate encounters—had been posted without consent by former partners, family members, or colleagues.
Affected individuals reported receiving alerts that their media had been shared, prompting investigations into the scope and nature of the violations.
Public reaction on Chinese social media was intense, with hashtags related to the scandal attracting hundreds of millions of views on platforms such as Weibo and Xiaohongshu, though some posts were reportedly censored or suppressed.
Comparisons have been drawn with South Korea’s “Nth Room” case, in which Telegram chatrooms were used for blackmail and sexual exploitation of minors and women.
The Chinese incident is said to differ in that the MaskPark forum lacked a central ringleader and focused more on voyeuristic gratification than financial gain.
The legal framework in China currently imposes comparatively light penalties: unauthorized photography may result in fines and up to ten days’ administrative detention, while disseminating pornographic content can carry a maximum custodial sentence of two years.
Legal experts and activists have criticised the laws as inadequate for addressing digitally facilitated sexual violence and non-consensual content.
Authorities face significant challenges in pursuing criminal cases.
Telegram is banned in mainland China and operates as an encrypted foreign platform; many offences lack clear classification under existing statutes, and gathering sufficient evidence remains difficult.
Cross-border investigations and enforcement pose additional obstacles.
Telegram stated that it removes non-consensual pornographic content when discovered and relies on user reporting.
Legal commentators, campaigners, and affected women have called for strengthened regulations, international cooperation, improved legal definitions of digital sexual offences, and enhanced protections for victims.
They also point to risks posed by hidden-camera technology and AI-generated deepfake content as factors exacerbating the scale of exploitation.
Efforts to regulate or censor discussion of the scandal on domestic platforms have been reported, limiting public debate despite growing outrage.
Critics argue that while Chinese authorities have demonstrated capacity to suppress politically sensitive material, gender-based digital abuse has not been addressed with comparable urgency.
Victims and observers continue to urge recognition of the abuses and reform, warning of widespread vulnerability across demographics and the normalization of non-consensual digital exploitation.
The group, initially formed in 2021 and dismantled at the end of 2024 after amassing over 300,000 subscribers, resurfaced in March 2025 and rapidly regained traction on the encrypted platform.
Sub-groups were organised by themes such as “female classmates and coworkers,” “lingerie,” and “brides trying on dresses.”
Offenders circulated secretly recorded material filmed in public spaces such as subways, university dormitories, fitting rooms, bathrooms, and private residences, using concealed devices like pinhole cameras disguised as screws, electrical outlets, incense holders, oil diffusers, and other everyday objects.
An increasing number of victims came forward, disclosing that private images and videos—some of them taken during intimate encounters—had been posted without consent by former partners, family members, or colleagues.
Affected individuals reported receiving alerts that their media had been shared, prompting investigations into the scope and nature of the violations.
Public reaction on Chinese social media was intense, with hashtags related to the scandal attracting hundreds of millions of views on platforms such as Weibo and Xiaohongshu, though some posts were reportedly censored or suppressed.
Comparisons have been drawn with South Korea’s “Nth Room” case, in which Telegram chatrooms were used for blackmail and sexual exploitation of minors and women.
The Chinese incident is said to differ in that the MaskPark forum lacked a central ringleader and focused more on voyeuristic gratification than financial gain.
The legal framework in China currently imposes comparatively light penalties: unauthorized photography may result in fines and up to ten days’ administrative detention, while disseminating pornographic content can carry a maximum custodial sentence of two years.
Legal experts and activists have criticised the laws as inadequate for addressing digitally facilitated sexual violence and non-consensual content.
Authorities face significant challenges in pursuing criminal cases.
Telegram is banned in mainland China and operates as an encrypted foreign platform; many offences lack clear classification under existing statutes, and gathering sufficient evidence remains difficult.
Cross-border investigations and enforcement pose additional obstacles.
Telegram stated that it removes non-consensual pornographic content when discovered and relies on user reporting.
Legal commentators, campaigners, and affected women have called for strengthened regulations, international cooperation, improved legal definitions of digital sexual offences, and enhanced protections for victims.
They also point to risks posed by hidden-camera technology and AI-generated deepfake content as factors exacerbating the scale of exploitation.
Efforts to regulate or censor discussion of the scandal on domestic platforms have been reported, limiting public debate despite growing outrage.
Critics argue that while Chinese authorities have demonstrated capacity to suppress politically sensitive material, gender-based digital abuse has not been addressed with comparable urgency.
Victims and observers continue to urge recognition of the abuses and reform, warning of widespread vulnerability across demographics and the normalization of non-consensual digital exploitation.
