[hrpc] Intimate Partner Violence Digital Considerations

[Leonie Tanczer <[e-mail]>]

Dear List,



My name is Leonie. I am an academic<https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=LMTAN17> at University College London researching technology-facilitated domestic abuse/violence. Niels ten Oever kindly mentioned that you are working on a document<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-celi-irtf-hrpc-ipvc-00.html> on Intimate Partner Violence. - Which is fantastic!



It’s great that you received input from people like Lana and Thomas. I like the list of attacks you developed – which is comprehensive.



I don’t have much to add/comment on because this already looks well-developed. The only things I can point out that may be worth considering:

  1.  I wondered if it may also be helpful to emphasise “gaslighting” in the text explicitly (fits under “perception of threat”). I am saying this because both the over- and underestimation of a device’s capabilities can be misused (we highlighted this in a recent report for the UK Government<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/978692/The_UK_code_of_practice_for_consumer_IoT_security_-_PETRAS_UCL_research_report.pdf>).
  2.  Perhaps you also would like to flag smart, Internet-connected devices as they open up avenues for remote, physical control (we have worked on this extensively here<https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83982-848-520211049/full/html>, here<https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3368860.3368861>, and here<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3350615>, for example).
  3.  The low/high-tech dimensions of this abuse pattern could be made explicit. This fits with the sentence that an “attacker can be technologically savvy or not” (we stress this in our work with UK support sector organisations here<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3931045>);
  4.  Under “3.2. Tech-based IPV tactics”, you could feature “hacker for hire” services (which we mention in Chapter 6 here<https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780429316098/technology-domestic-family-violence-bridget-harris-delanie-woodlock>). Although, I must flag that the prevalence of this is not clear. I have only heard anecdotal evidence from frontline workers that said victims/survivors had stated that their partner had threatened them with this (which, if not correct, relates to [1] above).
  5.  Under “Compromise of accounts”, you may also want to underline the impersonation to sign victims/survivors up for services (without their consent/awareness), including for porn sites or online banking (which then facilitates economic abuse).
  6.  Lastly, Deepfakes may be something worth accenting in the text.



Hope this is useful and happy to provide further input if wanted.



Best wishes.

Leonie