SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the my-thermostat-is-holding-me-hostage dept.
In more than 30 interviews with The New York Times, domestic abuse victims, their lawyers, shelter workers and emergency responders described how the technology was becoming an alarming new tool. Abusers - using apps on their smartphones, which are connected to the internet-enabled devices - would remotely control everyday objects in the home, sometimes to watch and listen, other times to scare or show power. Even after a partner had left the home, the devices often stayed and continued to be used to intimidate and confuse.
Connected home devices have increasingly cropped up in domestic abuse cases over the past year, according to those working with victims of domestic violence. Those at help lines said more people were calling in the last 12 months about losing control of Wi-Fi-enabled doors, speakers, thermostats, lights and cameras. Lawyers also said they were wrangling with how to add language to restraining orders to cover smart home technology.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday June 26 2018, @08:01PM
Bad analogy. Most people know that there is water in their house. Most know that it comes through pipes. Most know that it's at least theoretically possible for a pipe to break.
Many of the victims here didn't even know that their previous (abusive) partner could control devices in their houses remotely, or at least didn't know the extent to which they could do so.
At what point did I ever argue that this level of ignorance was to be encouraged? I didn't argue that, and I'm all for education, empowerment, etc.
But that's all beside the point. The question here really comes down to: Do you believe restraining orders are EVER an appropriate action in a domestic abuse case?
Yes, one can change locks. One can change phone numbers. But restraining orders say that even if such measures prove ineffective, abusers can no longer stalk or terrorize their victims -- or else face severe legal penalties for doing so.
IF you believe that restraining orders are a reasonable remedy in such cases of domestic abuse (often followed by stalking, continued harassment, etc.), then I think it's pretty darn logical that such anti-harassment provisions should apply to taking control remotely of devices in a victim's home. One of the main points of restraining orders is so victims of abuse can feel safe again without having to call the cops every single time the abuser shows up to harass again and again. If they can't even feel safe in their own home without said abuser remotely harassing them, what's the point of a restraining order?
None of this excludes the idea that it's also important to help victims reclaim the devices in their homes, to help them, to educate them, etc. But given the clear assertions in TFA that many victims did not even know the various methods by which they could continue to be harassed in their own homes, it may not be enough just to educate on unknown threats. Again, the point of restraining orders is to prevent all sorts of types of potential harassing behavior through some general principles.
Now, if you don't believe in restraining orders in general, I don't think we have anything to discuss here, because you clearly have a completely different perspective on this. If you DO believe they're an appropriate remedy in some cases, why shouldn't they logically be extended to these forms of harassment??