‘Digital Arrest’ and Vulnerability of the Women
Cybercrimes – both violent as well as non-violent, facilitated by technology occurs in public as well as private places, varying between and within groups (as found on/ among the adults and minors in general, the differently abled ones, any particular social class, etc.). Younger women, as well as those that are sexual minorities, are at higher risk for violence and victimization, for example, than their counterparts. While the reasons for these patterns could be complex, it indicates the importance of social location in the study of these contemporary issues. Such violence falls on a continuum of both illegal and legal behaviours, and these kinds of transgressions threaten the privacy and freedoms of those on the receiving end. Further, it is likely to end up as a global phenomenon sooner than we can imagine. In all, technology’s abuse, along with associated harms, creates an urgency for investigating these offences comprehensively so we may derive informed and appropriate solutions.
What is ‘digital arrest’?
In the rapidly evolving landscape of cyber threats, a novel menace has surfaced the concept of Digital Arrest. The impostors impersonating law enforcement officers deceive the victims into believing that their bank account, SIM card, Aadhaar card, or bank card has been used unlawfully. They coerce victims into paying them money. Digital Arrest involves the virtual restraint of individuals. These suspensions can vary from restricted access to the account(s), and digital platforms, to implementing measures to prevent further digital activities or being restrained on video calling or being monitored through video calling. In the era of digitisation where the technology is growing on an exponential phase, various existing loopholes are being utilised by the wrongdoers which has given rise to this sinister trend known as “digital arrest fraud”. In this scam, the defrauder manipulates the victims, who impersonate law enforcement officials and further traps the victims into a web of deception involving threats of imminent digital restraint and coerced financial transactions.
Technology as a Weapon
Electronically facilitated crimes can be deemed as an outcome of an already existing socially problematic behaviour in a new guise. Inherent in the virtual world are larger systems and interactions within those systems that imitate those in the real world; these large-scale structural forces impact power dynamics and abuses in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), including online sexual exploitation and image-based abuse, cyberstalking, and other forms of cyberviolence. While digital predators dominate the social media platforms and are more likely to use them against women than their male counterparts. They are also not protected in these spaces and are far more likely to experience particular kinds of victimization, such as technology-facilitated sexual violence, cyberstalking, etc.
While many online harms are gendered in nature, digital arrest could be really problematic for the female beings, particularly considering their vulnerabilities.
Some acts of technological nature resemble those that occur offline, albeit new offenses have emerged that present novel threats. Such techno crimes include nonconsensual photo/video recordings taken in public or private settings without consent and cases where persons in power violate positions of trust by electronically tracking victims they meet during the course of their work, e.g., discussion of stalking and assaults of passengers by Uber and Ola drivers in India. Some other examples include e-trafficking, cyber-trolling, online impersonation, doxing, swatting, cyber-mob attacks, deep-fakes and other image-based abuse.
Reasons for higher vulnerability:
Similar to in person occasions, the perpetrators of such crimes may use technology to objectify, demean, intimidate, and/or control others. In contrast to face-to-face violence, however, perpetrators of technology-facilitated crimes may be unknown because they could be often unseen. They could be classmates, coworkers, friends, loved ones or in few cases complete strangers. This may help explain high rates of these transgressions as the veil of anonymity protects and may embolden perpetrators; however, even when perpetrators are found or tried, high rates of aggression of certain cybercrimes are still prevalent.
Certain individuals have used technologies in invasive and other ways; monitoring, controlling, and punishing others.
Gendered cybercrimes has become common in digital spaces, and behaviours comprising such have grown increasingly threatening to recipients.
When Technology is used as a Shield
While technology has been used to harm, it has also been used to counter transgressions, hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, and protect individuals from future episodes of violence. Far from ideal, justice system responses have fallen short in meeting the justice needs of victims/survivors and, in some cases, contributed to further harms via secondary victimization. The victims have been pressured by police, courts, and other social service providers to turn off or alter the settings on their electronic devices, close social media accounts, and change financial and other accounts online, ignoring how difficult, impractical, and silencing/isolating such measures can be, When elements fundamental to safety, healing, and recovery are not included in justice practices or otherwise absent from the lives of those who suffer transgressions, the result is untreated, prolonged, and continued suffering. To move forward, it is imperative that structures incorporate trauma-informed care into operating systems and practices to improve users’ experiences and set the tone for electronic environments in ways that shape expectations and promote responsible behaviour.
Legal/Criminal Justice System
Increasing legislations in India has been enacted to protect victims of technology-facilitated violence and abuse. India does have the Information Technology Act, 2000, besides the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 as specific legislation to counter the offences of such nature.
Recognizing that these offenses can have severe consequences, almost every state in the United States has implemented varied laws that criminalize technology-facilitated crime or modify existing law to include cyber-related provisions. Nonetheless, there are many challenges and limitations to law.
To prevent technology-facilitated violence and abuse, a clear understanding of specific offenses comprising it (e.g., cyberstalking, online harassment, and image-based sexual abuse) and articulation of what constitutes each type of offense is needed to inform justice systems and personnel. The disseminated information should also include information on the dynamics of these harms, including the cooccurrence of digital and in-person offenses (see, e.g., discussion of nonlethal events; and lethal events. Such training has the potential to improve arrest and prosecution practices that impact victim safety and perpetrator accountability. Importantly, this means taking reports of digital harms seriously. Women’s or girls’ experiences of technology-facilitated crimes have been minimized by law enforcement and others in power, much like in-person experiences of gender violence, historically.
Even when recognition of the problem exists and reports are taken seriously, perpetrators of technology-facilitated crimes continue to evade detection and otherwise fall through the cracks of the justice system. Some cannot be traced; others may be dismissed. Conflicts in law further complicate matters, such as when a perpetrator resides in one jurisdiction while the target resides in another, thereby creating the need for expansion and collaboration when it comes to domestic and international law differences.
Educators
Education on the nature and consequences of technology-facilitated VAWG is crucial and should come from a variety of sources. Teachers at all levels can raise awareness of this social problem. School-based cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs for children and university students, which includes individual-level, multi-level systemic, and universal school approaches, have demonstrable effectiveness in reducing perpetration and victimization. It is imperative that prevention programming includes elements of bystander intervention to reduce these modern transgressions and hold those who may offend to a higher level.
Limitations
Although technology shows promise in addressing this crime it has limitations. While it can provide access to much needed services for WG in remote locations, not all women can afford or even know how to operate the latest and greatest technological innovations. Further, technology is not failsafe, and routine maintenance, lack of internet access or connections, and other service disruptions can interfere with regular performance, isolating women from sources of support. There are also issues with the corporate model of technology that collects and sells user data, opening users up to privacy risks. As such, overreliance on these devices and platforms may contribute to erroneous conclusions about safety and security that endanger some and contribute to violence. Performance aside, technological advancements may have other unintended consequences, including victim blaming.
Inclusive and culturally appropriate solutions for victims/survivors are necessary. Technological innovations that improve digital device security mechanisms and more accurately assess user patterns to determine that the primary owner is the only permitted user, such as enhanced authentication methods, and further engagement with online providers to curb harassing activities of their users online are warranted. We should not tell victims to simply stop using social media and electronics. Instead, we should be creating spaces that are safe and empower them to make decisions that promote healing, recovery, and solidarity. We see evidence of gender-based hate, misogyny, and other discriminatory practices in this digital era, which is increasingly recognized and confronted, yet we lag in reactive and proactive solutions. Until we target the crime at its source (i.e., perpetrators), such technology-facilitated crimes will continue.
Conclusion
Just as vulnerable communities need a continuum of care that may include mentors, social and recreational activities, and therapy, so too do vulnerable tech users. Women in general, globally, face real threats to their health and well-being from strangers, classmates, coworkers, intimate partners, and family members, both offline and online. Digital arrest seems to be spreading and has more likelihood of becoming a global phenomenon in dire need of attention. Instead of normalizing and attempting to dismiss these experiences, we need to collaborate to address perpetration, challenge the norms that are problematic and offer support to those most marginalized and often found to be harmed. Existing conditions of social and structural nature contribute to such crimes facilitated by technology and allow the perpetrators to escape and thrive, thereby perpetuating systemic injustice. By educating and sensitizing various persons to such technology-facilitated crimes, providing safeguards and assistance in digital spaces, and specifying sanctions for law-breaking behaviour, toxic behaviours and norms can be diminished. Correcting institutional and systemic responses to address misinformation and propagate promising solutions will shift norms, policies, and practices in informed and responsible ways that exact positive cultural change.
The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism (2018) also articulated specific recommendations for addressing such that include: taking legal and policy actions to recognize modern transgressions as harmful; incorporating gender-based hate in antidiscrimination educational programming; receiving support from federal and state agencies/leaders for research and services on victims, perpetrators, and communities; forming partnerships between tech and the public; improving and enforcing Terms of Service; filtering out obscene and offensive content; and punitive actions. These proposed measures were an admirable start. However, alternative solutions that address the root causes of these behaviors and work in reintegrative ways are also needed.
Understanding the nature of contemporary technology-facilitated offences, along with the unique struggles victims or survivors face can create more compassionate, user-friendly digital spaces. By recognizing diverse needs and implementing victim/survivor-centered approaches, larger structures (e.g., media and social media platforms) can help those harmed gain a sense of control and empowerment that allows them to act in their best interests. For too long, victims have been the forgotten persons in our justice systems, and we are witnessing the same apply to the digital world. An idea of real justice requires that we work with those who have been injured, and the social forces and norms that permit the continued perpetration of harm, to develop solutions. This requires a systemic understanding of how violence and its regulation affect the tech milieu as a whole. By prioritizing the rights, needs, and wishes of those who are most vulnerable to harm, we can make progress in digital spaces and social interactions.
Author
Tapobrata Pakrashi
Assistant Professor – School of Law