Source: http://indianacourts.us/times/2015/02/technology-intimate-partner-violence/
Timestamp: 2019-03-21 08:36:47
Document Index: 558909133

Matched Legal Cases: ['§875', '§35', '§35', '§35', '§2261', '§35', '§2265']

Technology & Intimate Partner Violence | Indiana Court Times
You are here: Home / Columns / Technology & Intimate Partner Violence
Technology & Intimate Partner Violence
February 24, 2015 by Court Times
While technology is not inherently violent, people who engage in intimate partner violence often employ technology as a means of obtaining and maintaining coercive control. Various technologies equip offenders with very efficient means to commit the crimes of stalking, intimidation, and harassment, while also enabling them to pinpoint their victims’ physical locations. Although it is challenging to stay one step ahead of the many different ways to abuse technology, it is important for judges and court staff to keep current on the latest issues associated with technology and domestic violence. This article will only scratch the surface of the many different ways that technology can be used to both victimize and protect individuals.
Technology as Aggression
Many people forego a landline and use a smartphone as their primary—or only—communication device. While this is convenient and can be cost-effective, the decision to “unplug” carries with it some vulnerability. Certain applications (apps) reveal information about the smartphone user, as do shared family phone plans. Phone company “family locator” apps, as well as “Life360” and “Family Tracker,” may have a benign purpose—keeping tabs on your children—but they can be misused for invasive purposes. Location-based social media apps, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Urban Spoon, can reveal a user’s location via GPS. Other popular apps, including Viber, Vine, WhatsApp, and Instagram, also tag users’ locations. Offenders have used this information to find victims in domestic violence shelters.
Smartphones are also vulnerable to “spoofing,” a practice whereby a person can place calls or send text messages using a fake caller ID in order to mask his or her real identity. Examples of such apps include “Caller ID Faker” and “Spoofcard.” Spyware allows offenders to convert their victims’ smartphones (as well as their computers) into listening and recording devices, letting an offender conduct total surveillance on someone. “Mobistealth” and “MobileSpy” are two leading examples of software available to monitor smartphones. “Spy phone” apps work on a “target” smartphone, revealing its exact GPS location, recording events, opening up contacts and photo albums, monitoring keyboard strokes, chats, and emails, and even looking through its camera lenses.
Finally, disappearing messaging apps, like Privnote, Snapchat, and Burn Note, let users send a message that self-destructs after a certain time, thus making it difficult to preserve evidence of the message. TigerText goes one step further by encrypting the message; the app removes the messages from both devices and phone company servers. But offenders do not need fancy software or smartphones to terrorize their victims—a regular computer and a Facebook account will suffice.
This term, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the appeal of Anthony Elonis, who was convicted of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S. Code §875(c). After his wife, Tara, took their two children, left him, and obtained a protection order against him, Elonis was fired by his employer. He was very angry, and he expressed his feelings in a series of Facebook posts directed at his ex-wife and, later, the FBI.
One of the posts, which he characterized as rap lyrics in the style of Eminem’s “’97 Bonnie & Clyde,” told Tara to “fold up your PFA [Protection From Abuse, or protection, order] . . . is it thick enough to stop a bullet?” Elonis also wrote a piece describing “making a name” for himself by perpetrating “the most heinous school shooting ever imagined” at one of the many “elementary schools within a 10-mile radius.” (Much has been written about Anthony Douglas Elonis v. United States, for which the Court heard oral arguments on Monday, December 1, 2014. Many of his threatening postings are too graphic to print in this publication. My sources include: “Chief Justice Samples Eminem in Online Threats Case,” New York Times, Dec. 2, 2014; “Threats on Facebook: LOL, I Didn’t Really Mean It,” techsafety.org, posted Oct. 17, 2014; “Chemerinsky: SCOTUS to ponder ‘true threats’ on Facebook,” abajournal.com, posted Nov. 25, 2014; and, “Are Facebook Threats Real?” slate.com, posted June 16, 2014.)
In Elonis, the Supreme Court will decide the standard for determining whether such language is protected expression or a punishable crime: an objective standard would mean that if a “reasonable person” would feel threatened by these postings, then they are criminal threats; a subjective standard would mean the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Elonis specifically intended that Tara feel threatened by his postings. Indiana’s criminal intimidation statute, Ind. Code §35-45-2-1, requires specific intent for threatening communications; our state’s criminal harassment law, Ind. Code §35-45-2-2, also requires proof of an “intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person.” Both statutes include computer-generated and other electronic messages in their purview.
By contrast, Indiana’s stalking law, Ind. Code §35-45-10-1 et seq., contemplates a “reasonable person” standard for judging a defendant’s actions. The law’s broad definition of “harassment” in section 2 undoubtedly covers the use of technology to stalk. The federal penal code also criminalizes stalking across state lines, at 18 U.S. Code §2261A, and contains a specific section on cyberstalking. Cyberstalking involves using technology to place a person under surveillance, or to harass, injure, intimidate, or kill the person. The largest study to date of stalking in the U.S. found that over 70% of stalking victims know their offenders in some capacity, and that most victims are divorced or separated people. (Catalano, Stalking Victims in the United States—Revised, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sep. 2012, NCJ 224527).
Technology as Protection
Some help is available to defend against the misuse of technology: the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV, nnedv.org) administers the “Safety Net Project,” which offers training and other resources to law enforcement officers, victim advocates, and others to address emerging technology and safety issues. The NNEDV, along with the National Crime Victim Institute, also operates the Relocation Counseling and Identity Protection Technical Assistance Project to assist survivors. And, the NNEDV manages the Technology, Education, & Confidentiality Project, which focuses on privacy and confidentiality.
Two smartphone apps are noteworthy for their potential to assist victims: TrapCall, which promises to “unmask” blocked numbers; and Circle of 6, which lets people easily connect with friends and get help quickly with just two touches to the screen. Smartphone users wishing to enhance their privacy can also turn off location services in the “settings” section of their devices, and anyone using a computer can visit data brokers’ websites and elect to opt out in order to shield their personal information from those sites.
Finally, some laws specifically aim to protect victims’ privacy: Ind. Code §35-37-4-12 outlines the circumstances under which a victim cannot be required to disclose certain personal information, while 18 U.S. Code §2265(d)(3) requires that Internet protection order registries not list the names of protected persons.
For additional information about this article, please contact Ruth D. Reichard, Family Violence Resource Attorney for the Division of State Court Administration, at (317) 233-0784 or ruth.reichard@courts.in.gov.
Filed Under: Columns, Family Violence Tagged With: Technology
Select Tag Abstract of Judgment ACE Administrative Rules Adoption Adoption Day Adoptions ADR/Mediation Adult Guardianship Advisory Opinion Advocacy age Allen Anderson annual report Appeal Attorneys Award Bail Bar Admissions Bar Exam bicentennial BLE BMV Broadcast Budget Case Numbers Cases / Caseload CCA CCS CDL Chamber Chief Justice Child Support Children Children's Commission CHINS CISC City / Town Courts Civil Civil Legal Aid Civility Clark CLE CLEO Clerk Coalition Code Commercial Courts commission Committee Communication Community conference Confidentiality Corrections / Supervision corydon COSCA Court Administration Court Interpreter Court Reform Courthouse Security Courtroom Criminal Customer Service DCS Disability Disaster Planning Disciplinary Disciplinary Commission discrimination Dispute Resolution Districts Diversity Docket Dolehanty Domestic Domestic Violence Drivers Drug drugs Dual Status e-file E-Filing E-Tickets EBDM Education / Training efiling Elections Employment Environment essay Ethics Expungement Family Court Family Violence FAQ FLSA Foley Foreclosure Forms Forums Funding Funds GAL/CASA General Assembly Governor Grant Grants Guardianship Guidance Harassment History icleo ICOR Improvements INcite Indiana Indiana Chamber of Commerce Innovation INPALL International Interpreter Interpreter / Translator Interstate Interstate Compact IOCS Jane Jane Seigel JDAI JLAP JTAC Judges Judicial Selection Jury Justice Justices Juvenile law law day Lawrence Legislation LGBTQ Madison Marion Media Mental Health Military Mobile Devices Mock trial Morgan National Adoption Day NCSC Odyssey Online Tools opioid oral argument Owen Owen County Parenting Personnel Pet Abuse Pretrial Pretrial Justice Pro Bono Pro Se Probate Probation Problem-Solving problem-solving courts Protection Orders Public Defender Public Safety Race Race & Gender Randall Shepard Randall T. Shepard Records Renovation report Risk Assessment Rucker Rules Rush Security Seigel Senior Judge Senior Judges Sentencing Service Sexual Harassment Shelby Shepard Sidebar Slaughter Small Claims Social Media Special Edition State Museum State of the Judiciary Statistics Stigdon Strategic Planning students summit Supreme Court Swearing-In Task Force Tax Tax Court TCN Teacher Technology Tippecanoe Tools trauma Traveling oral argument Trial court Trial Rules Twitter US Supreme Court VASIA Veterans Court Video Violence Warrant Wayne Workplace Workshop
Previous Issues Select Month January 2019 (12) December 2018 (13) June 2018 (14) March 2018 (14) January 2018 (12) October 2017 (10) May 2017 (14) February 2017 (9) December 2016 (13) September 2016 (12) June 2016 (7) April 2016 (12) February 2016 (10) January 2016 (16) November 2015 (7) July 2015 (12) May 2015 (8) April 2015 (1) February 2015 (12) October 2014 (10) June 2014 (13) April 2014 (11) February 2014 (16) October 2013 (13) August 2013 (10) June 2013 (14) May 2013 (14) March 2013 (9) December 2012 (14) September 2012 (11) July 2012 (12) May 2012 (14) February 2012 (11) October 2011 (14) August 2011 (10) April 2011 (9) February 2011 (9) January 2011 (9) December 2010 (12) September 2010 (9) June 2010 (10) May 2010 (14) February 2010 (5) December 2009 (9) October 2009 (12) August 2009 (12) June 2009 (18) April 2009 (11) February 2009 (14) December 2008 (9) October 2008 (11) August 2008 (7) June 2008 (10) April 2008 (12) February 2008 (12) December 2007 (8)