Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday June 26 2018, @12:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the my-thermostat-is-holding-me-hostage dept.

The New York Times reports a disturbing increase in the use of "smart" devices in domestic abuse cases:

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @12:21AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @12:21AM (#699042)

    True. I'd expect a good anti-abuse restraining order to include general language that would prevent 'side-channel' abuse like the aforementioned remote controlling of physical systems in proximity of the victim. But, also to avoid actions that are 'deemed harassing' that might not have proximity of the abuser or a remote system. I assume it would cover things like: mailing the victim a box with a dead horse head in it, calling all their friends and telling them stories about the victim, publicly releasing previously obtained compromising (or abusively captioned) images/videos, mail ordering a box of peanuts and having it delivered to someone with a peanut allergy, etc, etc.

    All of these things are generally abusive and don't require the abuser to even be in the some county as the victim. Having singular stipulations like 'within X hundred metres' of the victim is pretty stupid, because it only assume physical proximity and direct physical abuse. In reality, psychological abuse can happen without the abuser having any direct communication or contact with the victim, especially if they are good at manipulating third parties (or systems in this case) to do their dirty work for them.