One recent study of technology-assisted stalking found that “there are many spyware and/or tracking apps that anyone can download, many of them available on official app stores. Moreover, in addition to apps that are specifically intended to facilitate abuse, there are also dozens of legitimate apps that can be misused by abusers.”[4] Often personal reviews left on the pages for different apps and devices reveal the more insidious uses for harmless-sounding programs, such as those that tell potential buyers that an app intended to help find a lost phone is useful if one suspects their partner is cheating.[5] Other apps market themselves as a useful tool for monitoring a child’s internet usage while simultaneously posting blogs about how to use the app to read deleted messages on a partner’s phone.[6]

The same study found that “[i]n addition to enabling abusers to search for information on how to abuse, the Internet also enables abusers to find information that can help them locate a victim. Personal and organizational websites, blogs, social media platforms, and more, often provide names, photos, contact information, and other details.”[7]

Use of Smart Home Technology

Along with the proliferation of smartphones, the use of smart home technology has increased substantially, from 17 million connected homes in 2015 to 29 million in 2017.[8] These homes contain devices such as internet-connect televisions, thermostats, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, lights, and door locks. Men make up the majority of those purchasing and installing smart home technology, and therefore are the ones who have primary access to controls and passwords.[9] As these items are internet connected, they can be activated from afar and can be used to monitor or harass victims in their homes. One domestic violence advocate told reporters “callers have said the abusers were monitoring and controlling them remotely through the smart home appliances and the smart home system,” while another noted that victims “feel like they’re losing control of their home…[a]fter they spend a few days [at the shelter], they realize they were being abused.”[10]

Due to the rapidly changing nature of the technology, advocate, law enforcement, and legal professional must all be aware of how to account for smart home technology. One tactic suggested by some advocates is to ask judges to include smart home devices in restraining orders. However, “even if people get restraining orders, remotely changing the temperature in a house or suddenly turning on the TV or lights may not contravene a no-contact order.”[11] Further, others caution that restraining order that include smart home technology may be found to be over-inclusive and therefore unenforceable until laws are amended to reflect updates in technology.[12]

Nonconsensual Distribution of Intimate Images

Another concerning form of technology-aided domestic violence is nonconsensual distribution of intimate images (NCII). NCII occurs when a perpetrator—often a former or estranged intimate partner or spouse—publically shares private sexual images, videos, or messages of or by the victim without the victim’s consent.[13] NCII is often colloquially referred to as “revenge porn,” but this phrase can be misleading “because it suggests that a person shared the intimate images as a reaction to a victim’s behavior.”[14]

Countries have moved at varying speeds to address NCII. For example, Canada  has made it a crime to “knowingly publish[], distribute[], transmit[], sell[], make[] available or advertise[] an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct….”[15] Additionally, Australia has instituted a civil penalty, under which an individual who has posted without consent or threatened to post an intimate image of another person on an applicable platform is subject to a fine of 500 penalty units,[16] totaling AUS$105,000 as of 2019.[17] However, while women have been able to successfully sue their former partners in the United States for publicizing private sexual content, attorneys who have worked on the cases find that U.S. law “lag[s] behind technology.”[18]