WESNET SECOND NATIONAL SURVEY ON TECHNOLOGY ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AUSTRALIA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WESNET WESNET The Women’s Services Network SECOND NATIONAL SURVEY ON TECHNOLOGY ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AUSTRALIA
WESNET acknowledgement This research was produced with funding from Telstra. WESNET gratefully acknowledges the previous work of the National Network to End Domestic Violence in 2012, the former Domestic Violence Research Centre Victoria (now Domestic Violence Victoria) in 2013 and the ReCharge project, a joint project between the Domestic Violence Research Centre Victoria, Women’s Legal Services NSW and WESNET in 2015. Without these previous research efforts, the longitudinal aspects of this research would not have been possible. Acknowledgement of Country The authors acknowledge the traditional owners of this land on which we live and work, and their continuing connection to land, water and community. We pay respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island elders past, present and future; and we value Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, culture and knowledge.. (c) WESNET 2020 Published by WESNET (Women’s Services Network) Incorporated. GPO Box 1579, CANBERRA CITY, ACT 2061 ABN 16 068 548 631 First published November 2020 (WESNET) Suggested citation Woodlock, D., Bentley, K., Schulze, D., Mahoney, N., Chung, D., and Pracilio, A., (2020). Second National Survey of Technology Abuse and Domestic Violence in Australia. WESNET. Illustrations: Maria Ponomariova iStockphotos.
Second
National Survey
of Technology
Abuse and
Domestic
Violence in
Australia
Delanie Woodlock
Karen Bentley
Darcee Schulze
Natasha Mahoney
Donna Chung
Amy PracilioAcknowlegements The research team would like to thank the many people and organisations that have made this second national survey on technology abuse and domestic violence possible. Understanding how technology is misused in the context of domestic, family and other forms of gender-based violence is more important than ever before. We wish to acknowledge and thank Telstra for supporting and funding this research - in particular Abigail Brydon, Michael Parks and Robert Morsillo for their ongoing support of WESNET and the work that we do. We also thank the many frontline services that took the time to complete the survey and provide their comments and shared their insights and expertise with us. Thank you to Dr Kristin Diemer, Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Social Work at The University of Melbourne, for her guidance and feedback on the survey design. Also to Susan Swain and Sarah Biordi for emerging new technologies added to the survey for 2020. Thank you to Bonnie Pockley, Willa Whitewolf, Julie Oberin and Abby Brydon for proofreading and editing, and to Natalie Morris, Diana Hookey, Lauren Read and June Weir for their support. Thank you to Vig Geddes, Emily Maguire and the team at the former DVRCV, and to Helen Campbell, Executive Officer of Women’s Legal Services NSW who conducted the first national survey and enabled WESNET to use and expand upon the first survey instrument. The research team Dr Delanie Woodlock, Adjunct Lecturer, School of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of New England, Australia. Karen Bentley, Chief Executive Officer, WESNET. Darcee Schulze, Researcher and Sessional Academic, School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Australia Natasha Mahoney, Researcher and Sessional Academic, School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Australia Professor Donna Chung, Discipline Lead of Social Work, School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Australia Amy Pracilio, Researcher, School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Australia ii
Contents
Acknowlegements������������������������������������������������������������ ii Age groups of women most affected by technology-
facilitated abuse�������������������������������������������������������������33
The research team ���������������������������������������������������������� ii
Impacts on women from technology-facilitated stalking
Contents ������������������������������������������������������������������������� iii and abuse����������������������������������������������������������������������34
Table of Figures��������������������������������������������������������������� iv Legal responses ������������������������������������������������������������36
Table of Tables������������������������������������������������������������������ v Effective police responses����������������������������������������������37
Abbrievations������������������������������������������������������������������� vi What telecommunication companies should do to keep
women and children safe�����������������������������������������������38
Executive Summary���������������������������������������������������������1
Training and resources needed��������������������������������������39
Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������6
Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������42
Definition of Terms������������������������������������������������������������9
Recommendations and future directions������������������������44
Methodology ������������������������������������������������������������������ 11
References ��������������������������������������������������������������������46
Profile of the respondents����������������������������������������������12
Appendix - Survey Results Tables ��������������������������������48
COVID-19 ����������������������������������������������������������������������16
Types and frequency of technology used ����������������������18
How technnology is being used as part of domestic
violence perpetrator tactics��������������������������������������������22
Abusive tactics���������������������������������������������������������������22
Threatening tactics ��������������������������������������������������������23
Monitoring and tracking tactics ��������������������������������������24
Humiliating, shaming and punishing tactics�������������������26
Other tactics—impersonation, use of children and
financial abuse���������������������������������������������������������������28
Co-occurring abuse��������������������������������������������������������30
Particular risks for women from different cultural and
community groups����������������������������������������������������������32
www.wesnet.org.au iiiTable of Figures
Figure E-1: The top three technologies identified by Figure 13: Frequency of technologies used used to
respondents as being used ‘all the time’ by perpetrators. 2 verbally abuse, call women names or put women down22
Figure E-2: Respondents report video cameras and GPS Figure 14: Types of threatening tactics seen and how
tracking apps are being used ‘all the time’ in 2020, a often ������������������������������������������������������������������������������23
significant increase when compared to 2015 ������������������3
Figure 15: Types of monitoring and tracking tactics ������25
Figure E-3: Newer forms of technology-facilitated abuse 4
Figure 16: Types of humiliating, shaming and punishing
Figure E-4: Co-occuring forms of violence ����������������������5 tactics ����������������������������������������������������������������������������27
Figure 1: Age profile of respondents������������������������������12 Figure 17: Other tactics used by perpetrators����������������29
Figure 2: Organisation type of respondent ��������������������12 Figure 18: Types of abuse that co-occur with technology
abuse������������������������������������������������������������������������������30
Figure 3: Remoteness of respondents ��������������������������12
Figure 19: Have you noticed any particular issues with
Figure 4: Length of time in role��������������������������������������12 technology-facilitated abuse that are different for specific
groups of women? ��������������������������������������������������������32
Figure 5: Respondents experience of the gender of
perpetrators and of victim-survivors ������������������������������13 Figure 20: Age groups of women most affected by
technology-facilitated abuse ������������������������������������������33
Figure 6: Number of respondents by State and Territory13
Figure 21: In what ways do you think telecommunication
Figure 7: Whether DV is a major part of the respondents’ companies and internet providers could do more to
role���������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 enhance women and children’s safety? ������������������������38
Figure 8: Number of respondents and gender of Figure 22: If you were to undertake training in this area,
respondents��������������������������������������������������������������������13 what topics would you like to see covered? ������������������39
Figure 9: Practitioners with clients experiencing
technology-facilitated abuse ������������������������������������������18
Figure 10: The top three technologies identified by
respondents as being used ‘all the time’ by perpetrators.
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18
Figure 11: Technologies being used in 2020 with
increased frequency compared to 2015. ����������������������19
Figure 12A: What technologies are you seeing being
used to facilitate abuse and how often? ������������������������20
Figure 12B: What technologies are you seeing being
used to facilitate abuse and how often*?������������������������21
ivTable of Tables
Table 1: State/Territory of respondent����������������������������50 Table 17: Have you noticed any particular issues with
technology-facilitated abuse that are different for specific
Table 2: Remoteness of respondents ����������������������������50 groups of women?����������������������������������������������������������62
Table 3: Organisation Type��������������������������������������������50 Table 18: What age groups are most affected?��������������62
Table 4: Age*������������������������������������������������������������������50 Table 19: Co-occurring Abuse* ��������������������������������������62
Table 5: Sex*������������������������������������������������������������������50 Table 20: Do police take technology-facilitated abuse
seriously? ����������������������������������������������������������������������63
Table 6: Length in Role��������������������������������������������������51
Table 21: What reasons do you believe that police not
Table 7: Frequency of Support ��������������������������������������51 take technology-facilitated abuse seriously?������������������63
Table 8: Have you had clients who have been abused, Table 22: In your experience over the last 12 months, if
stalked or threatened via technology?����������������������������51 clients have had their intervention order/AVO/protection
order breached via technology, such as text messages or
Table 9: In your experience, what gender are perpetrators via Facebook, have police taken action? ����������������������64
of technology abuse mostly?*����������������������������������������51
Table 23: Technology may be used to collect evidence of
Table 10: In your experience, what gender are victims of abuse, such as by taking screenshots of text messages,
technology abuse mostly?*��������������������������������������������51 recordings made using a smartphone. In the course
of your work, have you seen evidence obtained using
Table 11: What technologies are you seeing being used to technology being used*: ������������������������������������������������64
facilitate abuse and how often?��������������������������������������52
Table 24: In the course of your work, have you seen
Table 11: What technologies are you seeing being used to examples of where courts did not accept evidence of
facilitate abuse and how often? (continued) ������������������54 technology-facilitated abuse as admissible evidence?��64
Table 12: What types of abusive tactics are you seeing Table 25: In what ways do you think telecommunication
perpetrators using via technology and how often? ��������56 companies and internet providers could do more to
enhance women and children’s safety? ������������������������65
Table 13: What types of threatening tactics are you seeing
perpetrators using via technology and how often? ��������57 Table 26: If you were to undertake training in this area,
what topics would you like to see covered? ������������������65
Table 14: What types of monitoring and tracking tactics
are you seeing perpetrators using via technology and how
often?�����������������������������������������������������������������������������58
Table 15: What types of humiliating, shaming and
punishing tactics are you seeing perpetrators using via
technology, and how often?��������������������������������������������60
Table 16: What other tactics are you seeing perpetrators
using via technology and how often? ����������������������������61
www.wesnet.org.au vAbbrievations
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
CALD Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
COAG Council of Australian Governments
DFV Domestic and Family Violence
DV Domestic Violence
DVRCV Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria
IBSA Image-based sexual abuse
ICT Information Communication Technology
NGO Non-Government Organisation
PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Safe Connections A joint partnership between Telstra and WESNET
that provides smartphones to survivors of domestic
and family violence through a network of specially-
trained frontline agencies that understand how
smartphones can be misused by perpetrators.
WESNET Women’s Services Network
viExecutive Summary
Australian researchers raised rapidly increased over the past Our 2020 findings show that
concerns about the potential decades in Australia, but women practitioners and women carry a
expansion of technology-facilitated lag behind men in their use of significant burden in responding
abuse in the context of domestic technology. Young women aged 14 to to and preventing perpetrators’
violence (DV) and its impacts over 24 years old are already less digitally abuse of technology. Practitioners
a decade ago. They foreshadowed included than males of the same age, noted that the use of technology
the growth of personal digital and the gap widens with each older is increasing in magnitude and is
technologies (Hand et al., 2009) and age cohort (Thomas et al., 2019). often felt as all-encompassing for
were concerned that technology- This technological disadvantage, victim-survivors. In their experience,
facilitated abuse would leave women combined with the fact that Australian women are entrapped by the
feeling constantly unsafe for longer women are nearly three times perpetrator’s use of technology,
periods following separation as a more likely than men to experience with some women returning to their
result of technology removing the violence from an intimate partner abuser because they felt they could
geographic and spatial boundaries (Australian Bureau of Statistics not escape his control. Respondents
that previously afforded women [ABS], 2017), makes the intersection felt this intensified during the first
the opportunity to be at a ‘safe of technology and domestic violence wave of COVID-19 in Australia (the
distance’ from their abusers. The an urgent and important issue in survey was opened from 6 May to 31
researchers recommended that achieving both gender equality and August, 2020).
quantitative data be collected and the elimination of violence against
monitored over time, that training and women. DV practitioners’ awareness of
resource development be prioritised the use of technology in DV has
for advocates and DV practitioners This report explores the 2020 increased since 2015 yet they
so that they would be prepared to findings of a national Australian described finding it hard to keep up
support women in the future, and survey with 442 frontline DV with the myriad of ways that women
that legislation be reviewed so that practitioners about the use of were controlled and monitored.
it could better address technology- technology by perpetrators. It is Disappointingly, there was little shift
facilitated abuse. This report provides a follow-up survey to the 2015 in legal responses to this abuse
the second iteration of evidence in ReCharge study, conducted by compared to 2015. Respondents
relation to the quantitative data. DVRCV, Women’s Legal Services noted that breaches to intervention
NSW, and WESNET to investigate orders made via technology were
Our reliance on technology as technology-facilitated abuse in rarely enforced and often taken less
individuals and collectively has Australia (Woodlock, 2015). seriously than physical abuse.
Figure E-1: The top three technologies identified by respondents as being used ‘all the time’ by perpetrators.
36% 35%
down
up up
28% 17% 2.5%
61%
Smartphones
www.wesnet.org.au 1The 2020 survey introduced several constantly sending messages to cameras being installed in roof
new questions, in particular, we victims-survivors, to carefully worded spaces and running with power
asked about co-occurring abuse so messages that perpetrators would packs that were discovered by police
that we could gain further insights use to cause victim-survivors fear. after separation. In another case, the
into the context of technology- perpetrator let a woman know he had
facilitated abuse. We found that Smartphones were the next most the property under video surveillance
like most experiences of DV, the commonly used technology (36.1% and she felt, therefore, she was
perpetrators used other forms seeing this ‘all the time’, an increase unable to leave.
of abuse alongside technology- from 31% in 2015). Facebook was
facilitated abuse and that most of also reported to be used frequently Respondents noted they were seeing
these were non-physical abuses. by perpetrators to abuse (35.1% GPS tracking apps used ‘all the time’
noting this as occurring ‘all the time’, (16.2%) and ‘often’ (45.6%). This is a
a slight decrease from 36% reported 131% and 75% increase respectively
Major findings in 2015). from 2015 (when 7% saw this
‘all the time’, and 26% ‘often’).
Almost all survey respondents Compared with 2015, practitioners Participants noted that because GPS
(99.3%) stated that they had clients are reporting large increases in the tracking apps such as “Find My” are
who had experienced technology- frequency with which they are seeing preloaded on iPhones, that women
facilitated stalking and abuse. This video cameras and GPS tracking were often obligated to turn them
is slightly higher than the finding in apps being used. The use of video on, or else they were seen by the
2015 (98.3%). cameras increased by 183.2% perpetrator as having something to
between 2015 and 2020. This could hide.
The type of technology most be due to the growth in accessibility
commonly used by perpetrators and affordability of video technology. Of the additional technologies added
was text messaging, with two thirds in the 2020 survey, FaceTime was
(60.7%) of practitioners seeing this Respondents noted that perpetrators seen as being used to perpetrate
‘all the time’. This represents a 28.3% would use cameras to covertly and/or technology-facilitated abuse, with
increase from 2015. Text messages overtly monitor women and children. almost half seeing this ‘often’
could be used in various ways, from For example, one respondent noted (42.6%). iCloud was also noted as
commonly used by perpetrators
to stalk and place women under
Figure E-2: Respondents report video cameras and GPS tracking surveillance, with almost half (42.2%)
apps are being used ‘all the time’ in 2020, a significant increase when observing this ‘often’.
compared to 2015
Of significance was the high
proportion of respondents seeing
16% government accounts such
as myGov being misused by
35%
up perpetrators to abuse women, with
up
183% almost a third of respondents seeing
131%
this ‘all the time’ (27%) and a further
fifth seeing it ‘often’ (37.8%).
The use of technology by
Video cameras GPS tracking apps
perpetrators to threaten victim-
2survivors increased from 2015 the time’ in 2015, to almost 1 in 3 The most common co-occurring
to 2020 across all modes. It is (28%) in 2020. abuse observed by respondents in
important to highlight that intimate 2020 was stalking (70.6%). Stalking
partner homicide is 11.36 times more In their experience, almost half is associated with a significant risk
probable with any kind of threat (49.9%) of the practitioners said that of lethal or near-lethal harm (Rai
made by perpetrators (Spencer perpetrators were forcing women et al., 2020). A 2020 meta-analysis
& Stith, 2020). Verbal threats to to film and record intimate images showed that stalking was associated
women using the phone increased by ‘often’. However, respondents felt it with a 2.79 times risk of intimate
35.8%, with one-third of practitioners was likely to be underreported and partner homicide (Spencer & Stith,
seeing this ‘all the time’ (32.9%) that they suspected was happening 2020). The impact of intimate partner
in 2015 to almost half (44.7%) in much more often than women were stalking is known to have very
2020. Between 2015 and 2020, comfortable talking about. specific and detrimental effects on
there was a 74.4% increase in the victim-survivors’ mental health.
reported use of text messages, email The use of children in technology-
or instant messages to threaten facilitated abuse showed significant The perceived risk for women with
women, increasing from one-third of increases over the time period. disabilties subjected to technology-
practitioners observing this ‘all the Children being given a phone or facilitated abuse increased by
time’ in 2015 (32.9%) to over half in other device as a way to contact their 115.3% from 20.57% in 2015 and
2020 (57.4%). father and monitor their mother’s 44.3% in 2020.
movements showed an increase of
The use of technology to monitor 346.6% from 2015. Women from non-English speaking
and track victim-survivors showed backgrounds were also seen to be
increases across all areas between Perpetrators’ use of children’s social at particular risk, at 43%, which is
2015 and 2020. Perpetrators media accounts to contact children’s an increase of 76.2% from 2015.
checking victim-survivors’ phones mothers also revealed a large Perpetrators would call, text and
and text messages without consent increase of 254.2% in 2020. use social media to contact family
was seen ‘all the time’ by over half and friends from overseas to spread
of practitioners (57.1%), an increase The 2020 survey asked practitioners rumours and isolate women, as well
of 97.5% from 2015 (which was about court-ordered child contact as use image-based sexual abuse
28.9%). Practitioners noted that and if perpetrators were using this (IBSA) in particular ways to shame
this was particularly prevalent with to abuse, threaten and intimidate women from CALD backgrounds.
younger women, where there was women, with almost half of the
an expectation in relationships that respondents (49.4%) seeing this ‘all There was an increase of 113.9% in
all devices and accounts should be the time’. the risks for Indigenous women, from
shared with partners. 12.9% in 2015 to 27.6% in 2020.
Another new question for 2020 While respondents did not provide
The developments in accessible was the tracking, monitoring and extensive detail on these risks one
digital technologies such as GPS, restricting of women’s banking participant said:
enable the quick uptake by large and finances through technology,
numbers of perpetrators using the with over one-third of respondents “My work is mainly with Aboriginal
technologies to control and monitor seeing this ‘all the time’ (38.7%), and women and it can be really
women. Victim-survivors tracked one-third seeing it ‘often’ (33.6%). damaging in these communities
with GPS apps or devices increased Financial abuse was observed as to have rumours etc spread via
in 2020 by 244.8%, from 1 in 12 co-occurring in 61.3% of responses. technology.”
respondents (8.12%) seeing this ‘all
www.wesnet.org.au 3Impact on women so invasive and psychologically could have significant ramifications
destabilising.” on women’s lives.
In both surveys, participants were
asked, “What has been the impact This ‘mental torture’ had significant
of technology-facilitated abuse on impacts on victim-survivors, Police and justice responses
women you have worked with?”. The with exhaustion, despair and remain the same
responses across the two surveys hopelessness mentioned by
were similar, however, we noted that respondents. There was little change in
there was an increased perception in practitioners’ perceptions of police
2020 that women were experiencing “The impact is huge. Since responses to technology-facilitated
high levels of fear and terror as a technology is such a part of abuse from 2015 to 2020. When
result of the technology-facilitated everyday life now, women often asked if they felt police took
abuse, and that they were feeling feel they have no escape from the technology-facilitated abuse
trapped and hopeless. perpetrator. This kind of constant, seriously, 61.6% said this happened
relentless abuse has a massive sometimes, but was dependent on
The term fear was one of the most impact on women’s mental health. the officer.
commonly used words in response I have seen women become
to the question of how technology- completely paranoid and jump at Practitioners noted that effective
facilitated abuse impacts victim- every sound due to the abuse.” police responses entailed them
survivors. A practitioner stated that taking the time to collect evidence
the impact was: One of the main consequences and seeing different forms of
of technology-facilitated abuse on technology-facilitated abuse as
“Unmeasurable[sic]. More than victim-survivors was increased patterns of control:
anything else, like rape, torture, isolation, and a fear of using
etc., that I’ve seen over the technology to keep in contact with
years, abuse with technology is friends, family and services. This
Figure E-3: Newer forms of technology-facilitated abuse
All the time
10% 10%
18%
27%
40%
42%
43%
38%
Often
FaceTime myGov iCloud Google
4Figure E-4: Co-occuring forms of violence
71% 70% 68% 61% 41%
Stalking Emotional Sexual Financial Physical
“Victim-survivor provided shifting the various ways in which The findings of the Second National
screenshots of recent breaches, technology-facilitated abuse is Survey on Technology Abuse and
disclosed receiving & answering perpetrated against women and Domestic Violence are an urgent
a lot of calls from private numbers how women and practitioners are call to action to governments,
where the caller would remain responding to these changing and telecommunication and technology
silent then hang up. Police growing abuses. Since the 2015 companies, police, and the
processed charges for breach and survey the extent of technology- justice system for the tactics of
also seek to obtain perpetrator’s facilitated abuse has increased, yet technology-facilitated abuse to
call log for charges of stalking.” it would seem that responses to be taken seriously. We need to
perpetrators of such abuse are not collectively work to support women
Even so, respondents also felt that expanding and changing to keep and children subjected to this abuse
even when police took the abuse pace with what is happening. States and ultimately prevent this abuse
seriously, it was actually difficult for and territories have criminalised from happening in the first place
further action to be taken through the IBSA and there have been some through effective technology design,
courts. prosecutions, however, the more legislation, awareness, training,
commonly described text harassment resource development and primary
and threats or breaching of privacy prevention education.
Conclusion through surveillance have been less
amenable to intervention, despite the
In conclusion, our second national considerable fear and severity of the
survey highlights how the rapid effects it has on victim-survivors.
changes in technology are
www.wesnet.org.au 5Introduction Australian researchers raised online spaces has been framed as a concerns about the potential human rights issue, and an indicator expansion of technology-facilitated of gender equality (Plan International, abuse and its impacts over a 2020). decade ago. They foreshadowed the growth of personal digital Women already lag behind men technologies (Hand et al., 2009) and in their use of technology. The were concerned that technology- Australian Digital-Inclusion index facilitated abuse would leave women (Thomas et al., 2019) shows that feeling constantly unsafe for longer young women 14-24 are less digitally periods following separation as a included than males of the same result of technology removing the age, and the gap widens with each geographic and spatial boundaries older age cohort. This technological that previously afforded women the disadvantage, combined with the opportunity to be at a ‘safe distance’ fact that Australian women are from their abusers. Back in 2009, nearly three times more likely than prevalence data about technology- men to experience violence from an facilitated abuse were not available intimate partner (Australian Bureau due to its recent emergence. The of Statistics [ABS], 2017), makes researchers recommended that such the intersection of technology and quantitative data be collected and DV an urgent and important issue in monitored over time, that training and achieving both gender equality and resource development be prioritised the elimination of violence against for advocates and DV practitioners women. so that they are prepared to support women in the future, and that In 2016, the United Nation’s legislation be reviewed so that it Special Rapporteur on violence could better address technology- against women, its causes and facilitated abuse. Much of this work consequences, Dubravka Šimonović, has evolved as predicted, and this analysed online violence and second Australian survey of DV violence facilitated by information practitioners represents an essential and communications technology addition to the evidence development (ICT) against women and girls from a in Australia and more widely. human rights perspective and stated: Our reliance on technology as “...the Internet is being used individuals and collectively has in a broader environment of rapidly increased over the past widespread and systemic structural decades. Anything that limits discrimination and gender based someone’s safe access to technology violence against women and restricts access to essential services, girls, which frame their access such as banking, education and to and use of the Internet and social services and can impair social other ICT. Emerging forms of and economic participation. Safe ICT have facilitated new types and open access to the internet and of gender-based violence and 6
gender inequality in access in technology-facilitated abuse.
to technologies, which hinder Academics, technologists and
women’s and girls’ full enjoyment frontline practitioners have attended
of their human rights and their three national Technology Safety
ability to achieve gender equality Summits held by WESNET in
(Šimonović, 2016).” Australia (held in 2016, 2017
and 2018). There has also been
The United Nations Sustainable government focus on the issue
Development Goals1 (SDGs) including the COAG Advisory Panel
also list gender and technology on Reducing Violence against
as key elements to achieving a Women and their Children (2016),
sustainable future world through and the announcement of the
achieving gender equality and $100m Women’s Safety Package
empowering all women and girls. by the Australian Government in
SDG Target 5.8 identifies the use late 2016. This Safety Package
of enabling technology to promote funded measures such as the
the empowerment of women. This eSafety Women program, technology
is an important context to frame our trials, Keeping Women Safe in
understanding around technology- the Home initiatives, and the
facilitated abuse—both the impacts highly successful NGO-Corporate-
as well as the suggested solutions to Government tripartite initiative
this abuse—to ensure that the use to provide smartphones, prepaid
of technology is not further curtailed credit to survivors and training for
in our attempts to keep women and DV practitioners through the Safe
children safer from men’s violence. Connections program2.
This report explores the 2020 There is now starting to be more
findings of a national Australian published research on the impacts
survey with 442 frontline domestic of technology-facilitated abuse,
violence practitioners about the particularly in the area of IBSA. IBSA
use of technology by perpetrators. has received the most attention
It is a follow-up survey to the 2015 from policy and law-makers over
ReCharge study, conducted by recent years. Legislation has now
DVRCV, Women’s Legal Services been introduced in every state and
NSW, and WESNET to investigate territory in Australia except Tasmania
technology-facilitated abuse in to make the non-consensual sharing
Australia (Woodlock, 2015). or the threat to share intimate images
illegal. The eSafety Commissioner
Since the release of our findings
in 2015 there has been a 2 The Safer Technology for Women initiative is
a three-way partnership between WESNET,
growing interest and investment Telstra and the Australian Government between
May 2016 and March 2021 and by November
2020 had provided over 24,000 smartphones
and prepaid credit to women impacted by DV,
1 Available at : https://www.un.org/ through a network of 276 frontline agencies that
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable- WESNET has trained in smartphone safety. See
development-goals/ https://phones.wesnet.org.au
www.wesnet.org.au 7has increased powers and there were controlled and monitored. telecommunication companies
has been a civil penalties scheme Disappointingly, there was little shift should be supporting victim-survivors
introduced the Enhancing Online from 2015 to 2020 in legal responses of technology-facilitated abuse.
Safety (Sharing of Intimate Images) to this abuse. Respondents noted The responses showed that as
Act 2018. that breaches to intervention orders understanding of this type of abuse
made via technology were rarely is increasing in DV organisations,
Our 2020 findings show that in enforced and often taken less so are the support needs of women
spite of this growing interest and seriously than physical abuse. and practitioners, with a requirement
investment, this is still a developing for advanced training around
area, one where practitioners and The 2020 survey introduced several technology-facilitated abuse and risk
women carry a significant burden new questions, in particular, we assessment. Respondents also felt
in responding to and preventing asked about co-occurring abuse so that telecommunication companies
perpetrators’ abuse of technology. that we could gain further insights needed to provide more specialised
Practitioners noted that the use into the context of technology- and advanced assistance.
of technology is increasing in facilitated abuse. We found that
magnitude and is often felt as all- like most experiences of DV, the Overall, the 2020 findings reveal
encompassing for victim-survivors. perpetrators used other forms significant increases in technology-
In their experience, women are of abuse alongside technology- facilitated abuse, which indicates
entrapped by the perpetrator’s use facilitated abuse and that most of the challenge of responding to,
of technology, with some women these were non-physical abuses. We and preventing its occurrence. It
returning to the abuser because also asked if men or women were also highlights the importance of
they felt they could not escape his most likely to be the perpetrator or longitudinal research in this area, so
control. This intensified during the victim, with an overwhelming majority that we can track the range of ways
first waves of COVID-19 in Australia. stating that men were most likely to in which technology-facilitated abuse
While not an intended focus of our be perpetrators and women most is increasing as well as the progress
study, practitioners note how the likely to be victims. This gendered of system response in addressing
enforced isolation of the pandemic pattern was seen throughout the this issue.
has provided opportunities for findings, with perpetrators often
perpetrators to further entrap women targeting women’s mothering and
and children using technology. impacting their relationship with their
children, as well as using technology
Respondents felt that their in their sexual abuse of women.
awareness of the use of technology
in DV had increased yet they Respondents to our survey identified
described finding it hard to keep up the resources most needed for
with the myriad of ways that women their work and how they felt
8Definition of Terms
Culturally and Linguistically The term ‘domestic and family and may include threats of
physical violence. Examples:
Diverse (CALD) violence’ can be defined as “the
threats, put-downs, name-calling,
repeated use of violent, threatening,
According to the Australian Bureau coercive or controlling behaviours insults, shouting.
of Statistics (2014), the term by an individual against a family • Emotional/psychological abuse:
‘culturally and linguistically diverse’ member(s), or someone with whom This involves manipulative
(CALD) is associated with various they have, or have had an intimate behaviour to coerce, control or
characteristics, such as a person’s relationship with, including carers” harm. This can include verbal or
country of birth, languages other (MacDonald, 2012, p. 3). non-verbal behaviours. Examples:
than English spoken at home, and undermining confidence, blaming
whether a person is Aboriginal and For this report, we use the term for their behaviours, humiliation,
Torres Strait Islander. We recognise ‘domestic violence’ rather than intimidation, twisting reality.
that this term does not highlight the ‘domestic and family violence’
• Economic abuse: This involves
differences of people within this because it most accurately reflects
using finances and economic
group or capture the complexities the violence discussed. The domestic
resources to gain power and
they experience (State of Victoria, and family violence practitioners
control in the relationship.
2019). However, CALD is a general who participated in this survey
Examples: monitoring spending,
term used by service providers to refer to the abuse as domestic
restricting access to financial
refer to people who have diverse violence and report that the abuse
resources, hindering employment,
language and backgrounds, is most commonly perpetrated by
accruing debt.
including diverse traditions, religion men against their current or former
and societal structures (Ethnic intimate female partner. • Social abuse: This includes
Communities’ Council of Victoria, isolation from family, friends or
2014). There is considerable overlap supports. Examples: restricting
between the two terms and both can contact with family or friends,
include the following behaviours: stopping attendance at social
Domestic Violence (DV) • Physical abuse: This includes
activities, monitoring location,
reading messages on phones,
physical violence that can cause
Domestic violence is defined as a smashing phones, using family
pain, injury and/or fear. Examples:
pattern of behaviour used to have and friends to intimidate.
slapping, punching, choking,
power and control over a current
shaking, smashing things, sleep • Spiritual abuse: This involves not
or former intimate partner. The
and food deprivation, denying letting you follow your spirituality
behaviours may be “actions or
medical support or medications. or religion. Examples: preventing
threats of actions” that can intimidate,
from practising personal beliefs,
humiliate, manipulate, create fear • Verbal abuse: This may occur
disrespecting individual values
and terror and cause hurt and injury in private or in public (including
and beliefs, forcing a faith or
(United Nations, n.d.). through electronic means),
spirituality, misusing religious or
designed to humiliate, degrade,
spiritual traditions to justify abuse.
demean, intimidate or subjugate
www.wesnet.org.au 9• Sexual abuse: This may include Western Australia; Intervention Order • gain authorised access to a
sexual assault and the sexual in South Australia). person’s digital accounts or
abuse of children. This may be profiles or devices
a single incident or a series of
• change functions, impair
incidents. Examples: rape, forcing Technology-Facilitated authorised functions or, cause an
unwanted sexual acts, forcing
Abuse unauthorised function on a digital
pornography to be viewed.
account, profile or device (Harris
Technology-facilitated abuse can & Woodlock, forthcoming)
involve perpetrators misuse of
Image-Based Sexual Abuse devices (such as phones, devices
(IBSA) and computers), accounts (such as
email) and software or platforms It is important to note that
The terminology ‘image-based sexual (such as social media) to control, technology doesn’t cause
abuse’ (ISBA) includes all forms abuse, track and intimidate technology-facilitated abuse,
of the nonconsensual creating or victim-survivors. This abuse can abusers do.
sharing of nude or sexual images (or be individualised, such as the
videos), including threats to share perpetrator using threats that have The same kinds of abusive
images and altered images. specific meaning for the victim- behaviours we have seen
survivors, but may seem innocuous abusers use in DV and other
to others. It can also involve the use forms of gender-based violence
Intervention Order of technology by perpetrators to: against women are still being
used by abusers, however
• post or send harassing or abusive
Under legislation pertaining to advances in technology, and
messages
domestic violence, survivors affected particularly mobile phone
by domestic violence, persons • stalk (tracking someone’s technology, mean that it is now
authorised by survivors or police activities, movements, much easier and cheaper for
officers can apply for an intervention communications) abusers to mis-use technology
order (an ADVO: Apprehended to perpetrate harms and
• dox (publish identifying, private
Domestic Violence Order, in New abuse. Perpetrators now have
information)
South Wales; a DVO: Domestic unprecedented, easy access
Violence Order: Northern Territory • engage in IBSA (producing or to simple and user-friendly
and Tasmania; DVIO: Domestic distributing intimate images or technology, and the effect is
Violence Intervention Order, in video without consent) that abuse and monitoring
Queensland; FVIO: Family Violence • make or share clandestine or behaviours have become
Intervention Order in Victoria; FVO: conspicuous audio or visual instantaneous, omnipresent,
Family Violence Order in Australian recordings of another person unrelenting and harder to detect.
Capital Territory; FVRO: Family
Violence Restraining Order, in • impersonate or steal another
person’s identity
10Methodology
The research involved releasing an surveys, therefore it will be noted Data was analysed using descriptive
online survey to practitioners in the throughout the findings where the statistics, frequencies and cross-
domestic violence sector to ask them sample size differed from the total tabulations.
about their experiences working of 442. We have also indicated
with clients experiencing domestic where there is a comparative finding
violence. to 2015, along with the number of Qualitative data analysis
respondents.
Responses to the open-ended
National practitioner survey questions were coded thematically,
Ethics first descriptively, then interpretively,
This online survey was a follow up to using NVivo (King & Horrocks, 2010).
the 2015 ReCharge study, conducted An ethics application was submitted The coding was undertaken by
by DVRCV, Women’s Legal Services to Curtin Human Research Ethics authors one, two and three, with the
NSW, and WESNET to investigate Committee (HREC) and approval themes discussed with authors four,
technology-facilitated abuse in was received on 24 April 2020 five and six to validate the findings.
Australia (Woodlock, 2015). The (HRE2020-0178).
purpose of the follow up survey is to
document the types of technology- Limitations
facilitated abuse being perpetrated, Recruitment
the frequency and the changes over Domestic violence practitioners
time. WESNET shared the survey through were sought as participants for this
its network of members, mostly research because of their “practice-
There were several additions made specialist women’s DV services, and based knowledge” that provides “a
to the survey in 2020 to reflect through its large network of agencies depth of knowledge and expertise
developments in technology and that provide Safe Connections which is often inaccessible to even
the increasing knowledge on how it phones to women and children. The the most skilled researchers” (Coy
is used by perpetrators of domestic survey was also advertised through & Garner, 2012, p. 296). However,
violence. A new question or option emails, training events, webinars, there are certain limitations to this
will have an asterisk next to it to newsletters as well as social media approach. Practitioners’ recollection
indicate it is a 2020 addition. channels. of events could be affected by
observer bias, resulting in an
Alongside the closed questions in the The survey was hosted on Qualtrics overestimation or an underestimation
survey, participants had opportunities online survey software and open of the technology-facilitated abuse
to add further comments, including for 118 days (6 May 2020 - 31 their clients experienced.
an open-ended question regarding August 2020). In this time, 527 DV
the impacts of the abuse on women. practitioners undertook the survey.
These responses were coded using
NVivo (QSR International, 2015) and
thematic analysis was applied. They Quantitative data analysis
are provided in this report to bring
depth to the statistics used, as well Responses were extracted from
as to add context to the findings. Qualtrics into IBM SPSS Statistics
software (IBM, 2019). Incomplete
Respondents were able to skip responses were removed, with a
questions in both the 2015 and 2020 final sample size of 442 practitioners.
www.wesnet.org.au 11Profile of the respondents
Overall, 442 domestic, family Figure 2: Organisation type of respondent
and sexual violence practitioners
completed the 2020 survey.
The majority of practitioners (81.7%) 11% Sexual Assault
Services
specified they had worked directly
in DV organisations, with others
working in sexual assault services
(10.6%), legal organisations (9.7%), 10% Legal
Services
housing and homelessness services
(8.8%), health services (5.7%),
Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander
services (4.3%) and multicultural
services (2.5%). Other respondents
specified workplaces such as child
protection, health, women’s services
81% 9% Housing
Services
or community services.
Respondents were mainly aged 45 to Domestic Violence
54 (29.7%) and had been working in Services
their role in DV for one to five years 6% Health
services
(39.1%).
Figure 1: Age profile of Figure 3: Remoteness of Figure 4: Length of time in role
respondents respondents
100
100 100
Age Remoteness Length in role
80
80 80
60 60
51% 60
40 40 40 39%
27% 30% 26% 28%
23%
20 16% 20 14% 20 14%
10% 10%
3% 2% 3% 4.8% 3.6%
0 0 0
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 Major city Regional Rural Remote OtherThe majority of the respondents Figure 6: Number of respondents by State and Territory
indicated that supporting women
and children experiencing DV was
their main role (87.9%). Of the 442
respondents to the question about
their location, the majority were from
Victoria (29.5%), New South Wales 8
(23.2%), and Queensland (18.2%),
with most working in major cities
(51.4%).
80
The majority of respondents were 58
female (96.4%).
32
102
ACT
130
14
Figure 5: Respondents
experience of the gender of
perpetrators and of victim- 16
survivors
In the practitioners’ experience,
Female Other
the majority of perpetrators of
technology-facilitated abuse are male
(96.4%). Other practitioners said that
96% perpetrators were both parents or
ABUSERS
MALE
they didn’t know. Victims were most
likely to be female (92.8%).
Male
Figure 7: Whether DV is a major Figure 8: Number of respondents
part of the respondents’ role and gender of respondents
Male
442
Other Children
Small part
93% 88%
88%
VICTIMS MAIN
Main
FEMALE focus
FOCUS
426 16
Female
www.wesnet.org.au 13This page is intentionally blank 14
Findings
www.wesnet.org.au 15COVID-19
Our survey was launched in May [allowed for] unsupervised
2020 during the first wave of communication directly with
COVID-19 in Australia. While the children occurred by the offending
survey did not specifically ask parent. Accessibility was
questions about the impact of the overlooked by the school admin.”
pandemic on DV, practitioners noted
the way that technology-facilitated Several practitioners noted that
abuse had been influenced by stalking and surveillance had also
COVID-19. increased, with tracking inside the
home through the use of cameras,
One of the main ways practitioners and outside the home with GPS. A
observed this impact was through practitioner explained:
children’s schooling. Children were
widely required to use technology “During COVID 19 I have seen an
to access their schooling and increase in the use of surveillance.
perpetrators were exploiting this, I have seen an increase in the
using the opportunity to seek number of perpetrators installing
information about their whereabouts. cameras to observe and watch
A practitioner shared: women while at home and using
listening devices to listen to
“With the current climate of everything she says.”
COVID-19 children are being
given greater access to technology This surveillance led to some
to complete school work- this perpetrators to verbally abuse
provides greater opportunity for the women when they felt they were in
perpetrator to manipulate children locations they should not be due to
into giving location information COVID-19:
and to provide monitoring of
victim whereabouts/company/ “Most recently I have had a
daily activities. It also allows perpetrator who has tracked a
for perpetrators to have private client’s whereabouts and they used
conversations with children that this information to verbally abuse
are often malicious in nature and her later and make accusations
damaging to the relationship about her putting children in unsafe
between child and mother.” situations by leaving the house
during COVID-19- causing panic,
Practitioners felt that the schools fear, etc. The client went to the
did not take these increased risks supermarket.”
seriously:
Practitioners observed that there
“Smartphone applications that was an increase in pornography
were newly implemented by use, IBSA and the sexual abuse
primary schools to enable more of children during COVID-19. A
communication with parents at practitioner wrote:
home, in response to COVID-19
16“There’s been a huge increase in The impact of the abuse of
pornography use during COVID-19. technology during COVID-19 was
Women [are] being forced to seen as increased isolation, with
participate and [there is] also [an] women feeling fear about using
increase reports in children being social media to keep in contact with
abused in this way also.” their friends and family. A practitioner
wrote that this impact resulted in:
Another worker shared that they had
largely seen an increase of threats “Women feeling isolated from
to share images, but also noted they friends and family (especially
had seen charges laid for IBSA on during COVID 19) due to feeling
social media: unsafe to use social media without
being tracked or slandered.”
“We have had a few cases recently
since COVID-19 of image abuse. Increased reliance on technology for
Some charges have been laid for school, work and contacting friends
posting on Facebook and other and family due to COVID-19 opened
social media sites.” up opportunities for perpetrators to
control, monitor and isolate women.
These findings are in line with the While the ways that technology was
eSafety Commissioner (Curtis, 2020) used during COVID-19 is not novel,
reporting an increase of 245% of lockdown provided perpetrators with
complaints about IBSA. She also legitimate avenues, such as using
reported an increase of 120% in child schooling apps, that enabled them
sexual abuse material. The increased to abuse in ways that were often
use of technology due to COVID-19, overlooked. Perpetrators capitalised
as well as women and children on being locked down in isolation
being isolated with the perpetrator, with women and children, resulting in
are argued as contributing to this an increase in sexual abuse of both
increase. women and children.
www.wesnet.org.au 17Types and frequency of technology used
Almost all survey respondents increase from 2015 when only half noting this as occurring ‘all the time’,
(99.3%) stated that they had clients of practitioners were seeing this a slight decrease from 36% reported
who had experienced technology- ‘all the time’. Text messages could in 2015). The abuse on Facebook
facilitated stalking and abuse. This be used in various ways, from happened both privately and publicly,
is slightly higher than the findings constantly sending messages to with practitioners stating:
in 2015 (98.3%). It is important to victims-survivors, to carefully worded
emphasise that this number indicates messages that perpetrators would “Facebook ‘secret’ Messenger.
that 99.3% of participants in our use to cause victim-survivor fear. The messages instantly disappear
survey have worked with clients Participants noted: within seconds of opening them.
subjected to technology-facilitated You cannot prove you have
abuse. “Women are bombarded with received them, or their content
abusive messages, particularly via unless you screenshot them as
Figure 9: Practitioners with text message. They end up hating soon as you open them.”
clients experiencing technology- their phones and feel like there is
facilitated abuse nothing they can do to stop the “Perpetrators make posts on their
of DV Practitioners messages, especially when they Facebook wall for friends and
have clients need to share that number for child family to see about the women
experiencing contact.” which get shared or sent to the
technology-
women who have them blocked
facilitated
99.3% abuse “Perps [sic] can be quite covert in
their abusive messages. They have
and attempting to live free from
violence.”
meaning for the victim, but it is hard
to show that they are abusive.” Compared with 2015, practitioners
are reporting large increases in the
According to practitioners, frequency with which they are seeing
In the practitioners’ experience, the smartphones were the next most video cameras and GPS tracking
type of technology most commonly commonly used technology (36.1% apps being used in technology-
used by perpetrators was text seeing this ‘all the time’, an increase facilitated abuse. The use of video
messaging, with two thirds (60.7%) from 31% in 2015). Facebook was cameras increased by 183.2% from
of practitioners seeing this ‘all the also reported to be used frequently 2015 (12.5% seeing this ‘often’) to
time’. This represents a 28.3% by perpetrators to abuse (35.1% 2020 (35.4%). This could be due
Figure 10: The top three technologies identified by respondents as
being used ‘all the time’ by perpetrators.
36% 35%
down
up up
28% 17% 2.5%
61%
Smartphones
18You can also read
