Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

As Domestic Abuse Goes Digital, Shelters Turn To Counter-surveillance With Tor

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the finding-new-ways-to-hide dept.

Privacy 133

An anonymous reader writes "Almost every modern abusive relationship has a digital component, from cyberstalking to hacking phones, emails, and social media accounts, but women's shelters increasingly have found themselves on the defensive, ill-equipped to manage and protect their clients from increasingly sophisticated threats. Recently the Tor Project stepped in to help change that. Andrew Lewman, executive director of the project, 'thinks of the digital abuse epidemic like a doctor might consider a biological outbreak. "Step one, do not infect yourself. Step two, do not infect others, especially your co-workers. Step three, help others," he said. In the case of digital infections, like any other, skipping those first two steps can quickly turn caretakers into infected liabilities. For domestic violence prevention organizations that means ensuring their communication lines stay uncompromised. And that means establishing a base level of technology education for staff with generally little to no tech chops who might not understand the gravity of clean communication lines until faced with a situation where their own phone or email gets hacked.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

in b4 idiots (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942221)

I look forward to claims along the lines of, "It's not abuse unless you physically injure them," and other quasi-religious nonsense which treats the brain as a perfectly rational ideal rather than just another organ subject to external influence.

Re:in b4 idiots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942567)

So only the religious beat their wives? This is insightful?

Re:in b4 idiots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942651)

That was clearly not what OP said. Quasi-religious means that these ideas are holdovers from a highly-rigid religious society.

Re:in b4 idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943269)

That was clearly not what OP said.

Maybe you're right that that is not what OP said, but to say that they clearly did not say that? To say that OP said anything clearly is absurd. The only way OP could have been less clear about what they were saying is if chicken butt white picket fence five gallon paint bucket fertilizer pitchfork pitchfork pitchfork muffler.

Re:in b4 idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943293)

Republicans also do. That is the way of their kind.

Re:in b4 idiots (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944705)

This ridiculous stereotype that women are abused and men are abusers must stop. It is completely untrue [odt.co.nz] , and simply presented to an accepting society who believe that women are weak and gentle creatures.

Speaking as someone whose first serious partner was an abusive woman - one who knew how to play the people around her - it took me years to gather the strength to get away from her.

She once threw one of her soft toys at me, aiming to hit me with it. When I threw it back, she ran from the room screaming (so she could be heard by others) that I'd promised to never hit her.

She would regularly punch me - just out of the blue - and call it "a love tap." She raped me hundreds of times - six times in a night, once. She was reading daddy-daughter incest porn. If I didn't want sex on a particular morning, she'd accuse me of being gay, or just keep going anyway.

Once upon a time, I commented that a friend of mine had bought her partner a nice watch. My ex- started screaming incoherently at me, then lowered her voice saying that it clearly meant I was in love with this friend, then raised her voice and started shrieking other crap at me. Of course, everyone around came running to her aid, not bothering to work out what was going on.

When I was studying from 8am until 5pm, and then working from 6pm until 9pm, she started demanding that I stop having lunch every day so I could buy her roses.

She then stole $1400 from my bank account.

She later stole my $2000 computer, CD player, a bed, and other assorted items, then sent me the bill for the computer.

That particular group of friends now believe that I used to smack her around a bit, and wouldn't even meet her halfway.

According to the local rape crisis group if those acts were committed against a woman, that is abuse.

Re:in b4 idiots (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#46942861)

I look forward to claims along the lines of, "It's not abuse unless you physically injure them,".

It's a hard line to draw without sufficient and legally-clear context; for example, consider a facebook/twitter/whatever post addressed to someone, stating "You look lovely today", posted without any further context from someone you know. To an ordinary non-abused person, and many abused persons, this statement is nothing more than a pleasantry. To someone hiding in a battered women's shelter, this could be a direct threat.

You see, abusers are (often) smart enough to not use words that any jury member would immediately recognize as a threatening/abusive gesture.

On the other hand, minus a no-contact restraining order, how do you legally tell the difference in a way that is meaningful? After all, if I said that to some random stranger, and they decide to scream for a cop to lock my ass up... err, what standing is there to do so? Maybe the person in question was raped a day ago and the rapist whispered those words - but I had no clue as to that having ever happened. Saying it may well have hurt the person due to PTSD, but even if I didn't know, there's a legal concept where ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if there were a law that could get me arrested for mental assault (for lack of a better term)...

I guess what I'm getting at is that you have to be damned careful as to where and how much you get the law involved with such things. It's likely much better for all involved that a simple no-contact restraining order draw the line instead, so that only those who the order is leveled against are, well, restrained, and the rest of us can go about our day.

Re:in b4 idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943241)

All good points. What are you doing on /. ?

Re:in b4 idiots (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#46942899)

I look forward to claims along the lines of, "It's not abuse unless you physically injure them," and other quasi-religious nonsense which treats the brain as a perfectly rational ideal rather than just another organ subject to external influence.

What does this or any defense of it have to do with religion?

Re:in b4 idiots (0)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 5 months ago | (#46945015)

I look forward to claims along the lines of, "It's not abuse unless you physically injure them," and other quasi-religious nonsense which treats the brain as a perfectly rational ideal rather than just another organ subject to external influence.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not abuse unless you can provide evidence that you attempted to stop it. If he doesn't have gouges on his face and you don't have his skin under your fingernails, you clearly didn't mind too terribly much.

Digital Domestic Abuse (2, Insightful)

glrotate (300695) | about 5 months ago | (#46942261)

Sending a nasty email is not domestic abuse.

Stop trivializing the suffering of women that get beaten within a inch of their lives by brutal husbands.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (5, Insightful)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#46942321)

Sending a nasty email is not domestic abuse.

Stop trivializing the suffering of women that get beaten within a inch of their lives by brutal husbands.

Psychological abuse is the first step. Why do you think a woman continues to stay with a man who beats her?
And who said that their only concern is psychological abuse? They also need to make sure there isn't a way that
the abuser can't track and/or figure out where the victim is going to be in real life.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942433)

Why do you think a woman continues to stay with a man who beats her?

She like that. Men stay with abusive women for the same reason. Some peoples like dick, some like cunt, others like pain. It's the human nature.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942679)

From your answer, we can see you are the type that likes dick.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942751)

From your answer, we can see you are the type that likes dick.

You are correct. And therefore, you can't disagree with me because that would be homophobic.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942921)

*golf clap*

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942471)

they are psychologically imbalanced and believe it's better to be with a man who beats them than alone. and I've been the son of an abuse victim and unfortunately seem to find myself with friends that fall into that category consistently enough to tell you that's why.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942915)

Let's not sugar coat it by being politically correct. I think the correct word to use is insecure.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 5 months ago | (#46943815)

Let's not sugar coat it by being politically correct. I think the correct word to use is insecure.

How about even less sugar coating? Fucking Stupid.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944149)

You've clearly never been in a abusive situation. It's not so easy as "only stupid people get abused and don't do anything about it". Often they feel confined, and like they have no options; the person that they love (because usually that's how relationships like this start) is reinforcing that while simultaneously eroding self-confidence to keep them from leaving.

Saying they're stupid for not leaving abusive situations is ignorant. Futhermore, it's offensive to everyone who's been abused.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (1)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46944453)

If I had mod points....

It is about as ignorant as saying 'well, if I had a broken leg I would just keep walking!' It is easy to picture just walking away from an abusive relationship when one has never actually been in one.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944491)

Yeah, it's not even like cayenne8 is a conservative who wants to cut all the safety nets that might catch a woman needing to leave the breadwinner of the family and strike out on their own.

Oh wait....

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942943)

I've seen more to it than that. There's also cultural, societal, and religious pressures. In my pre-cana, what I lovingly refer to as the Catholic marriage stress-test, the topic of divorce came up with the arch-dioces present. The guy just stood there straight-faced and started in on how "you should stay with your spouse and work things out." This is the same group that was preaching about having sex on specific days of the woman's.. ahem... schedule as a replacement for any birth control, but that's another topic. Point being the church, at least locally and a few others I've heard of, admonishes divorcees and really puts on the pressure to stick with the first marriage. Even to the point when one spouse fears for their own life the church insisted on fighting them. Yes, I do have experience to back that up.

I'd consider a cultural/societal pressure to be if it's something you were raised in or around. I've known many girls that are in abusive relationships not only because of the fear of being single, but because they are following in their parents footsteps. Mom may have been emotionally or physically abused, the kid thinks it's normal and seeks it out themselves. I've also seen instances where mom was abused and the daughter turns the tides and starts being the overbearing, abusive girlfriend. I've also seen instances where the parents pressure their kids to work it out, despite the black eyes and bruises. Others where they stick through it because the little kids need both daddy and mommy, so I'll endure for x more years.

It takes an incredibly strong will to break that cycle. I'd liken it almost to an addiction in that there is some sort of emotional need that must be overcome in order to break free and move on. While no abuse is acceptable in my opinion, I really dislike seeing/hearing about it when little kids are involved.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943731)

This makes a LOT of sense. I always wondered why I ended up dating psychotic lunatic bitches.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943767)

I really dislike seeing/hearing about it when little kids are involved.

But big kids are ok?

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944851)

Mom may have been emotionally or physically abused, the kid thinks it's normal and seeks it out themselves. I've also seen instances where mom was abused...

First, quit repeating the bullshit that women are the injured party. It is 50/50 [odt.co.nz] not 100/0.

Second, my mother used to attack my father, then beat herself up and ring the police, pretending that he had attacked her.

This went on weekly for about four years, until he left her. Then she proceeded to invite him around, beat herself up, and ring the police.

I REMEMBER THIS OCCURRING.

She got into relationships and used that guy as a weapon against my father, including persuading one to attack him (skinny unskilled fuck vs a guy trained in combatu jiu jutsu who would get into pub fights every day - hence why the cops would believe her every time).

She's also threatened to stab me with a knife after throwing dinner plates at me, she used to regularly assault my brother and I with electrical cables, vacuum cleaner attachments, anything she could get a good swing with.

She still does it, too. After fleecing her mother for more than $15k, she fleeced my father (her ex-) for more than $3k, and now that she's employed refuses to pay it back because it's not her job to support him.

Women are just as capable of being abusers as men. Sadly, it's unknowledgable fools such as yourself who reinforce this idiotic - and readily exploitable - ideal that women are weak, frail creatures who need protecting from the big bullying men.

I've another post much nearer the top detailing my own experiences with an abusive woman (who stole significant amounts of money from me). Go read it.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942721)

This is much more than a nasty email. And, by the way, one nasty email can destroy or alter lives permanently in this bat-shit manic depressive word.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

v3rgEz (125380) | about 5 months ago | (#46942797)

Did you read the piece? She was beaten repeatedly, and the digital component is what kept her trapped in the relationship.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 months ago | (#46943179)

Actually, I did read the piece. It reads like so:

"But two months in, after a brief breakup, he put her hands around her neck and threatened her life, Sarah said."

This is psychological abuse, as written. If he had tried to strangle her, he would have done more than 'put his hands around her neck'. It was a threat.

"On New Yearâ(TM)s Eve of 2008, Sarahâ(TM)s partner passed out in their car after an argument over the gratuity on their bar tab. She tried to help him up the stairs but when he came-to he began throwing her, repeatedly shoving her to the ground, and finally kicking her into a wall before passing out again."

Dude was passed out. Dude did not want help going up the stairs. She probably could have left his ass on the lawn. I'm not saying this isn't physical, but a drunk-to-the-point-of-blackout person isn't the hardest to avoid. There's something missing from this part of the story.

After she woke up in the hospital, she appears not to have reached out to the police, who would have been required to investigate, by law.

"She narrowly avoided being struck by a car when her partner shoved her into oncoming traffic after becoming angry with her for interacting with men at a gay bar."

Dude's a shover, for sure. Probably a royal asshole, and some flavor of monster.

He is not, however, the best case around which to write a story. Many, many, many women have things a lot worse.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (5, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#46942913)

Sending a nasty email is not domestic abuse.

My wife had to put up with an asshole ex-husband who thought the same thing during the early stages of our relationship. He loved to call her up once in a great while and screw with her head - usually after she'd gotten over the last time he called and once he figured out her new phone number. It wasn't until I called him up one day and said two things that he shut up and went away, never to pester her again.

Her personality brightened up a whole hell of a lot more after that, and we've been extremely happy about things ever since.

(...those two things? The first was a recitation of his home address and the hours he was usually home. I'll plead the fifth before I tell you the second one.)

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943361)

It is not your right to be with a woman who has an "ex". It is not the woman's right to divorce or leave her ba'al (master). Read the old testament. You enforce your feminist religion around the globe.

The Old Testament also allows men to have child brides (read deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew). You feminist democracy shuckers enforce your religion against that too around the globe.

I hope there is a religious war against you and I hope you lose it.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 5 months ago | (#46944725)

Physical Abuse and Harassment are two different things. Conflate them and you will re-invent thought crime.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943885)

All forms of abuse can cause severe injury to the abused party. Being severely beaten can cause injury that is life-long in its effects; however, psychological abuse can be just as devastating -- just in different ways. Psychological abuse, which includes emotional and verbal maltreatment, and the resulting trauma causes alteration in the structure of the brain (certain regions atrophe, especially those involved in emotional regulation, and can reach the point where the abused individual is unable to handle the stresses of day-to-day life. This is what happens in PTSD. What makes it worse is that psychological trauma is often invisible to others, unlike physical trauma; and few understand its chronic, severe, and far-reaching effects. It is the hardest to measure and treat therapeutically, and it is the hardest to gain support for.

Physical wounds heal quickly; emotional wounds often last a life time. A nasty email by itself may not constitute domestic abuse; but it certainly is abusive if part of a pattern of aggression and control.

If there was physical abuse present, psychological abuse was there first.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944407)

> Sending a nasty email is not domestic abuse.

This has to be the most ignorant and disgusting thing I've ever read on Slashdot, and I mean that with no hyperbole. To whoever wrote this, even if you were just joking or trolling: you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (1)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46944445)

Something does not have to be as bad as the worst cases in order to still be bad, and psychological abuse can still be pretty bad.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 5 months ago | (#46944661)

Sending a nasty email is not domestic abuse.

Stop trivializing the suffering of women that get beaten within a inch of their lives by brutal husbands.

1) Verbal and emotional abuse can be incredibly harmful. When i worked in the courts, we found suicide by abused women was just as often precipitated by verbal threats as it was by physical abuse.

2) Thats not why they are having to cover tracks. Womens shelters are often beset by deranged ex partners hunting their former girlfriends wanting to beat or even kill them in far more cases than people are comfortable discussing. Thats why the its so important not to get hacked or intercepted to avoid men using shady private investigators to break in and steal details of the womens hiding places.

Re:Digital Domestic Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944783)

Stop trivializing the suffering of women that get beaten within a inch of their lives by brutal husbands.

Stop being an idiot and repeating this bullshit that abuse is women beaten up by their husbands. Stop using weasel words, too. "Brutal husbands," you fucking idiot.

Abuse is much more than physical violence - it's the manipulation and brutalisation of an individual by a partner, parent, other other.

A recent police study has shown [odt.co.nz] that women are equally as responsible for domestic violence as men.

Poor Women..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942309)

Poor Little Women.....

After i moved in my my ex, I soon found out she used to stay up to 1am most nights having cyber sex and all sorts of shit with mutiple guys online.
used to hide what she was typing when I walked past.... I knew something was up.

so I purchased a key logger, got access to all her passwords, and saw all the shit she used to say to guys, photos she would send to them, and telling them she would run off overesas to marry them....

back prior to meeting my current wife on facebook, before it turned to shit....

how did we meet - who has been using FB long enough to remember Social Me?????

anyway - so many women I met on there I have found later they actually had partners they did actually physically meet peeople and cheat on them.....

so boo hoo poor women.....

not saying they any sort of vigilance is correct..... but lets not forget in this day and age, those cunts bring on the shit themselves.... if only you knew half of what they do online......

Re:Poor Women..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942337)

ohh....

and no I no longer use Facebook.... have zero need now I have a wife and baby on the way.....

Re:Poor Women..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942397)

Great so you are breeding and that dumb stupid idiot fuck retard gene will propagate. If you are looking for relationships on Facebook, you are a desperate fool.

Re:Poor Women..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942487)

actually dipshit, I didn't look for any relationship on FB.....

i *meet* her through face book... then... guess what... met her in this thing called the *real world*, where we got to know each other....

but I'm not sure if a basement dwelling dick like yourself knows what that is....

Re:Poor Women..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942953)

Wow, sumthin musta happened to you to get you to be such a dick. Not all women are like that....kinda like, not all men are dicks.

Re:Poor Women..... (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 5 months ago | (#46942725)

see, this is exactly the sort of thing that we want to avoid. Being in a relationship with someone does not give you license to intrude upon her privacy.

Who the FUCK IS WE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943665)

Who is WEEEEEEE.

Who the FUCK IS WE you feminist piece of shit.

In a man's nation the man is the master (ba'al) and he can marry little girls and young females aswell (deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew).

I hope your womans country is destroyed.

Re:Poor Women..... (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#46942947)

Dude - if she was cheating on you, man up and leave. You do not have the right to do anything else, and unless you're a sociopath who loves mentally beating down a woman just to feel better about yourself, your story has no relevance here.

YES HE DOES HAVE THE RIGHT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943477)

He is a man, the ba'al of the woman (master of the woman) in the old testament. Fuck your woman's CUNTRY.

FUCK IT.

I know somebody like this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942357)

I know somebody in an abusive relationship. Her husband monitors the messages that she sends and receives on her cell phone. He demands to have access to her Facebook and email accounts. She has a second email account that she only accesses it from the public library. I don't really know how Tor will help in an abusive situation. It's not so much that somebody is tapping the lines, but that the abusive party tries to control what they do on the devices that they know about. She can't use her cell phone, or home computer for anything private. Trying to install Tor on the computer would just give the abuser more reason to cause problems.

Really she needs to get out of the relationship, and many of her friends tell her that, but she just won't do it.

Re:I know somebody like this (2, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | about 5 months ago | (#46942435)

If you need to be private from your spouse/so, you should examine why. Then, alter your current relationship or find a relationship where it's comfortable enough that you don't feel like you have to keep secrets.

If you're keeping secrets, you're not all in, and bad things will come eventually. If you think that not being able to keep secrets constitutes abuse, I think you have a problematic definition.

Re:I know somebody like this (2, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 5 months ago | (#46942481)

Exactly. My wife is free to read my email any time she wants, and vice versa. Can't imagine needing to hide anything.

I've also learned there are two sides to every story. Be very careful judging if you've only heard one.

Re:I know somebody like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943011)

I know my wifes password (i think). She knows mine. The only reason she knows mine is I told her it 3 days ago. Until then she didnt even want to know what it is. I told her she needs to know it.

We do not need to look as we you know trust each other.

If you can not even do that do not get married. Marriage is not for you.

This sums it up better than I can
http://sethadamsmith.com/2013/11/02/marriage-isnt-for-you/

Re:I know somebody like this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944259)

Thats under marriage's definition of "we stop being two entities and begin being two less-than-entities".

I've been happily married for 15 years, and me and the wife have zero access to each others private space. Yes that include our communications and a lot more. Do we have things to hide? The answer ALSO belongs to private space.

But insecure feebles will always need to supervise each other while masking all that behind the "trust" motto. In the end, that's the same mentality of global surveillance at the cell/family scale. Same formula huh?

"If you have nothing to hide..."

Re:I know somebody like this (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943143)

My wife knows my email password. She has full file permissions on my porn folder. I even have location sharing enabled on my phone.

But I will never share my Spotify playlists, lest she find out my hidden love of One Direction and Rebecca Black.

Re:I know somebody like this (4, Funny)

bitt3n (941736) | about 5 months ago | (#46943577)

Exactly. My wife is free to read my email any time she wants, and vice versa. Can't imagine needing to hide anything. I've also learned there are two sides to every story. Be very careful judging if you've only heard one.

the other side of the story: "my husband thinks he has access to all my email."

Re:I know somebody like this (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 5 months ago | (#46942583)

If someone is actively hiding something from their spouse because they think their spouse will react negatively to it, then there's a problem with the relationship. However, this doesn't mean that the spouse has a right to see EVERYTHING that person says/does. In the parent's comment, they related the tale of a husband who monitored every cell phone message, Facebook post, and e-mail message his wife made/received. That's not normal behavior. I don't monitor my wife's messages. In fact, I'm not even on Facebook and she is. She could easily be saying nasty things about me there without me knowing. However, I don't demand to see/approve everything she says because I respect her. She's not "property" for me to "manage", she's my spouse and my equal in our relationship.

And lest anything think it only works one way, there are plenty of women who are as controlling as the example above. Either way, if you are demanding to see everything your spouse writes/says, there's a problem in the relationship.

Re: I know somebody like this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943103)

Hear-hear, in my 35 years of marriage I can't remember ever even looking through my wifes purse let alone email or phone/messages. The thought of doing so seems repugnant. In an intimate relationship if there's not room for individual privacy one or the other will end up being controlled or smothered if even by their own devising. If my wife wasn't allowed the privacy to stash money for a rainy day we would have washed out years ago. That's just one small area secrets can be immensely useful.

womans country. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943539)

In a man's nation the man is the master (ba'al) and he can marry little girls and young females aswell (deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew).

I hope your womans country is destroyed.

Re:womans country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943773)

What was the point of this? Sounds like a load of Ba'alshit to me. We need a real Ba'albuster for this case...

Re:I know somebody like this (5, Insightful)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 5 months ago | (#46942645)

It seems like you have cause and effect backwards, here. Having privacy, even within a married couple, is healthy. There needs to be trust that your spouse isn't going to purposefully do something to harm the relationship. For instance, my wife texts and calls friends, and I generally don't know the content of those conversations. My wife telling me if I ask is trust, and it's healthy. If I demanded access to her E-mail, phone history, etc, that's not healthy, and it wouldn't be her fault if she wanted to maintain a corner of privacy in her life. You can't blame my jealousy and irrationality on her actions.

If I'm being abusive, then I'm not going to want her to find outside help, and I'm not going to want her to talk to her friends about her problems. I'll want to control every aspect of her life. That's the situation we're looking at, not an otherwise-stable relationship with communications issues.

Re:I know somebody like this (2)

bitt3n (941736) | about 5 months ago | (#46943649)

finally some common sense! what my wife confides in her girlfriends during their weekly book club sessions is none of my beeswax. If they're meeting at our house that week, I make a point of scheduling some time at the driving range and let them have their fun. likewise, she has sense enough not to ask what exactly I'm doing hanging out at the local highway rest stop between the hours of 2 and 4 am every Saturday night.

Re:I know somebody like this (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 5 months ago | (#46942693)

Having privacy is not always about keeping secrets. It's about having your own life. I don't tell everything about my life because I'm not someone who needs to talk about me all the time. Also, frankly,it is because most of I do for work is boring, and she doesn't really want to hear about it. If she asks about the work conversation I had with a female coworker over lunch, I'll tell her but there's really nothing to tell, and I don't want to feel compelled to discuss/report everything.

Also privacy is not always about you. Confidential conversations I had with friends do not always need to be shared. If one of my friends them is going through a possible divorce with his/her spouse, should I just go home and start blabbing about it to my SO?

Re:I know somebody like this (0)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 months ago | (#46942791)

Not only that, but if my wife didn't come home from work at her usual time - without calling me - I would be pretty upset. We'd all be sitting at the dinner table, wondering if she was okay, and I'd damn sure call. If she was 'out with friends' without telling me her plans beforehand, I'd be pissed.

Whether or not this has any bearing on "Sarah's" situation I can't say. But the article didn't make me feel very sorry for her.

Re:I know somebody like this (3, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#46943035)

If you need to be private from your spouse/so, you should examine why. Then, alter your current relationship or find a relationship where it's comfortable enough that you don't feel like you have to keep secrets.

If you're keeping secrets, you're not all in, and bad things will come eventually. If you think that not being able to keep secrets constitutes abuse, I think you have a problematic definition.

As I'm very good at this sort of thing because I work in the industry and nothing goes in and out of our network without me knowing about it, it's come up. I explained to her that she would have to trust me that I would never read her mail (which I dont), and I would have to trust her that all of her secret emails involved surprise birthday parties or generalize complaints about me to her sisters (which I could understand). If she did feel the need to be sending the kinds of emails that if I read them we'd have a real problem, just divorce me instead. It will make the emails a lot easier, and I can hit on all her friends.

Re:I know somebody like this (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 months ago | (#46943427)

Any person so obsessed with controlling everything you say or do and everyone you see won't let you live a normal life, because it's perfectly normal to have friends or family or colleagues or people with the same hobby you spend time with without your significant other glued to your side. It's like joining a sect where they want you to cut all contact with the outside world, surveillance is only the first step, then interrogation whenever you've been out of their control and finally they make up all sort of crazy logic and accusations to make you stop seeing other people. Already you're so far off in your fucked up world that you think it must be because they are keeping secrets from you, I just didn't think so many would jump to your support. For all who approved, if you're in any kind of relationship I hope they get the hell out before it's too late.

Re:I know somebody like this (1)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46944483)

Well, one rather typical example would be handling emails dealing with other people's private information. If Alice and Bob are married and Carol has something private she wants to talk to Alice about, Bob should not get automatic access to Carol's private issues.

Re:I know somebody like this (2)

Phreakiture (547094) | about 5 months ago | (#46942707)

Putting the TOR Browser Bundle on a thumb drive or a CD might be a usable solution. Take the flash/CD out when you're done using it and it leaves nothing on the computer, assuming there is no keystroke logger.

If there is concern that there might be a keystroke logger, then TAILS is the way to go. Boot from the removable media, and remove the media when you are done. Just make sure it's not found.

Re:I know somebody like this (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 5 months ago | (#46943799)

unless it is a hardware keyloger.

Newspaper Article of Shelter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942389)

Speaking of compromise... I remember one time a feel-good article in the newspaper about volunteers helping to build a women's shelter. Moronically, the paper included a picture that included identifying information about the shelter.

women are stalkers too (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942411)

why do none of these articles ever address the bunny boilers and child killer women? there are a LOT of them out there... David Letterman had a particularly noxious lady stalker nut after him.

but these articles always just Shit on Men....

Re:women are stalkers too (0)

hondo77 (324058) | about 5 months ago | (#46943339)

Because there aren't shelters filled with abused men and their children they took with them when they escaped the abusive relationship (that I'm aware of). I'm sure that won't stop your miserable whining, though.

Re:women are stalkers too (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46943489)

Because there aren't shelters filled with abused men and their children they took with them when they escaped the abusive relationship (that I'm aware of). I'm sure that won't stop your miserable whining, though.

Fun fact: That's because there are very few shelters for men.

We've got a couple here in Canada, and they're heavily used. The abuse industry, and I will call it that for good reason has done quite a bit of work pushing the "only men can be abuses" belief. And have pushed it so hard that it's skewed court and family court against men. It of course also doesn't help that there's a huge social stigma on the "the wife/gf/so/etc" beat up the guy. With the "why didn't you stand up for yourself, etc.," bit. Police don't care one way or the other in the case of a domestic here, and try to find the primary person who instigated it. But if the women is the one, there really isn't anywhere for the guy to go.

But let's move onto the homosexual side. Depending on what study you want to cite, the abuse rates between both same sex couples hit as high as 70%, for the women again there's a place they can go to. For the men, not so.

Re:women are stalkers too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943611)

Perhaps, Hondo77, this is, because there are just about no shelters for men and their children in need?? And your second sentence just goes to show, that you have swallowed the feminist propaganda hook, line and sinker. Belittling men when they can't otherwise be attacked is a true and tried tactic of those upstanding vaginal-Americans, who, ironically, never tire to whine themselves until they GET what they set out to GET by any means necessary! Sorry bro...you are the fool here!

Re:women are stalkers too (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 5 months ago | (#46944777)

A female abuser with any intelligence would use the police to torture the man since that option is easily available to her, so any male victims would be in jail. Certainly no man is going to "escape" with a mother's children! Meanwhile women are getting government services so they don't have to experience the "trauma" of separating from pets

Re:women are stalkers too (2)

SourceFrog (627014) | about 5 months ago | (#46944813)

Look at actual statistics and you'll discover that contrary to what the mainstream media is spoon-feeding you, women abuse men equally often. Open your eyes. Men often experience it worse, not just because of the stigma, but because there are no "men's shelters" to run to, and because society's view is "it's always the man's fault". Leaving isn't always easy when there are kids involved. Often these men end their suffering other ways like committing suicide. Stop perpetuating the common myth, and let's start caring equally for all victims of abuse.

Re:women are stalkers too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944941)

You lose [odt.co.nz] . Women are responsible for just as many cases of domestic violence as men are.

Re:women are stalkers too (2)

SourceFrog (627014) | about 5 months ago | (#46944883)

Some fun facts and figures:
* "A University of Florida study recently found women are more likely than men to "stalk, attack and abuse" their partners"
* "A University of Washington study recently found women were nearly twice as likely as men to perpetrate domestic violence in the past year"
* "Virtually all sociological data shows women initiate domestic violence as often as men, that women use weapons more than men, and that 38% of injured victims are men. California State University Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes almost 200 of these studies"
* "A recent study in the Journal of Family Violence found many male callers to a national hotline experienced high rates of severe violence from female partners"
* "California State University surveyed 1,000 college women: 30% admitted they assaulted a male partner"
* "A University of Pennsylvania emergency room report found 13% of men reported being assaulted by a female partner in the previous 12 months, of which 50% were choked, kicked, bitten, punched, or had an object thrown at them, 37% involved a weapon, and 14% required medical attention"
* "Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men"

http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/male_abuse.htm

Conclusion: Anyone who says men should stop "whining" about abuse is a dick and should STFU, and it's time we start taking this serious problem seriously.

this ha more to do about the abused. (2, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 5 months ago | (#46942553)

I expect to get modded down for blaming the victim, but ill say it anyways. From everything in TFA crisis teams and even the local police department went to great lengths to ensure Sarah could be evacuated from the immediate viscinity of her threat. Instead of complying with the restraining order and severing all communication with her abuser, she allowed herself to become compromised once again by responding to an email from him.
She returned to him and its as though technology has somehow exacerbated domestic violence to the point of her present scenario. She gave her attacker passwords, usernames, cellphone access, email access, and a host of other very sensitive information based solely on the pretext that he was 'an undercover FBI agent' and at no time thought to as for some form of confirmation or conclusory evidence to prove this. She never once stopped to wonder why an undercover FBI agent would ever tell anyone about themselves.

Hillariously enough she actually still lives in the same town as her attacker/abuser. from TFA:

"No body is going to believe all of this stuff," Sarah said. "Even now I have a lot of shame. I have a lot of blaming myself."

This is a natural response to realizing you have completely rendered the hard work and assistance of teams of crisis responders and police completely null and void. We all make mistakes, however Sarah seems functionally incapable of the cognitive process by which we learn from those mistakes and grow.

Re:this ha more to do about the abused. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942623)

"I'm not sexist but..."

Re:this ha more to do about the abused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944533)

I'm going to come right out and say it: it'd be stupid if a guy did it too.

This is slashdot, where we make fun of people for exchanging their passwords for a candy bar. Stupidity abounds in all genders.

Re:this ha more to do about the abused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942695)

>Hillariously enough she actually still lives in the same town as her attacker/abuser.

Hilariously? Have you considered suicide, or at least keeping your dysfunction to yourself to make the world a better place?

Re:this ha more to do about the abused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46944737)

Ok how about stupidly, then? Moronicly? What else is there?

No. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942743)

Sarah was probably abused as a child - that is all the knows. As an adult, she gravitated to a partner the was like her abuser.

Human beings are not this completely rational animal. As a matter fact, most of our decisions are based on gut feelings (Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow [google.com] ).

And when you mix in physical trauma, people break and do stupid things like run back to their abuser or don't leave. A lot of that is also fear - fear that the abuser will punish them.

Or to put is this way, to expect rational action from someone in this predicament is completely unreasonable.

Re:this ha more to do about the abused. (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 months ago | (#46943111)

Honestly, I think it may be as simple as this:

It takes a certain type of person to fall into a trap like this.

Not that that means she doesn't need help, or anything of that sort. But if she was savvy she would have noticed that the guy was living a double life. If she was smart she wouldn't have tried to commit suicide with Ibuprofen of all things. Thankfully for her, she survived.

Re:this ha more to do about the abused. (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46943557)

Not surprising. That's a standard abuse pattern, and it's built on the belief that "x person has changed' and "they can change them, so they go back." I've done the whole support bit before, and the cycle is so cyclical that it's scary. The victim is responsible, the problem of course is that the victim is self conditioning themselves and the abuser is reinforcing it. You can bet that following up you'll see one of the following if they went back you'd see a standard following of control from restricting movements, to controlling who she could or couldn't see.

But you're right, she doesn't have the cognitive process to learn from the mistakes and grow. She's empathizing with her abuser, and trying to change them...because they believe they can change them. Because the abuser is telling them so.

Re:this ha more to do about the abused. (1)

SourceFrog (627014) | about 5 months ago | (#46944921)

Abuse victims often sort of 'model' their later relationships on childhood relationships in which they were abused. So someone abused as a child, may tend to choose abusive people into their lives, because that's the relationship pattern they've been conditioned to know. We help break out of this by understanding it better, educating more people on it, and having more empathy/sympathy and support for victims.

In related news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942749)

The city of Carson, California has just passed a law making it illegal to insult Justin Bieber online.

(No, seriously.)

Re:In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943751)

Suits me. The best way to rid ourselves of that no-talent, preening little shit is to not talk about him at all.

Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 5 months ago | (#46942927)

The average worker in a violence shelter knows how to work the cursor on a computer and push the "send" button, but has a long, long way to go before beginning to understand the issues with Internet security. This problem has no technological solution. You can install the most sophisticated locks on your front door, but it won't protect you if you leave it unlocked, and it won't protect you from having your door smashed down.

There is a solution to this, and it goes "clink" with the closing of a prison cell door.

Re:Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 5 months ago | (#46943045)

What you say is true, but ignores reality. Yes, there is no technological solution, that's probably why part of what they're doing is educating the people who need help. You know, teaching them to throw the deadbolt in your door analogy. Also, a smashed down door is still preferable to a simply opened and shut one. A smashed down door attracts attention, both inside and outside the house. A smashed down door takes time. It takes effort. It takes a certain amount of physical skill.

Why insist on not improving just because the improvement won't be perfect?

Re:Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 5 months ago | (#46943217)

+1. Any solution is better than nothing. There isn't a 100% secure solution, but I've wondered about using TOR, but have the traffic hit a proxy after it leaves the exit node. The reason for this is that there are a lot of sites out there that block TOR traffic either for philosophical reasons or just due to abuse. Having the proxy in front allows for full access to websites. If the proxy's userdata is kept separate from IP address logs, it would be even better.

As for local network activity to protect people in the shelter, the Wi-Fi connection going through TOR, or at least a "hardened" VPN would go a long ways there. It will at least stop attempts at geolocation.

Re:Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 5 months ago | (#46943383)

"Any solution is better than nothing."

Unless the "solution" makes the situation worse. This is great for the ones installing and maintaining the technical "solution", but if it doesn't actually fix the problem then all it will do is cause a consumption of time and resources of shelter workers and give victims a false sense of security.

Re:Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 5 months ago | (#46943221)

Improving what? Tor won't improve the situation. Those at risk won't use it: they'll still have their identities on the net. If you only want to surf the web, you can do that without Tor. Even if it does get used, the people staffing the shelter won't understand it, and won't be able to advise these victims sufficiently to keep them from being exposed to abuse. These people have educations in psychology and social work (if even that).

People have been dealing with this problem for a long time. They do it by moving, changing their bank accounts and, if necessary, changing their names. You don't need Tor for that, and having Tor won't stop the victims from reassociating themselves with their abusers.

Restraining orders should be reasonably easy to get, by a victim being able to show abuse. When restraining orders are issued, there need to be consequences for violations. Once the abuser knows the police are behind that locked door, he won't be breaking it down.

Re:Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 5 months ago | (#46943509)

I'm beginning to suspect you haven't read the article... I know, I know... but still.

"Since then, the two groups have been working to develop a resource that will provide staff and advocates with the base level of technological know-how required to address casework with a digital abuse component."

"The Tor Browser Bundle is free software that works like most ordinary browsers but comes configured to make it harder for individuals to be tracked, obscuring or deleting things like a browser’s history, location, and IP address from both the website the user is browsing as well as erasing traces from the computer the browser is hosted on."

It's not about facebook, it's about secure communications between an abuse victim and their caseworker or even the police. It's about teaching them how to make travel arrangements without the confirmation emails spelling out where they're going and when. It's about teaching them what's possible if someone has unlimited access to your phone.

Re:Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 5 months ago | (#46944463)

Your suspicions are wrong. A caseworker will not solve the problems of keyloggers, of smartphone recorders (audio and number logs), or of ignorant victims who just don't have any clue how to protect themselves. Tor won't solve any of that. If the victim needs to contact the caseworker, advocate or the police, they can do it over the neighbor's telephone or in person. This "resource" (the resource being developed by these two groups) won't fix exposures to a tech-savvy jerk who wants information from his victim.

Maybe this resource should be instructions to the victim to get a new cell phone, bank accounts, address, etc. (Oh, except that's pretty much what they're already doing.)

Re:Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943097)

I've seen things swing both ways, where abuse is claimed (to the point of one party in a relationship injuring themselves.)

A person who I worked with has dealt with that. From what I gather, after his messy divorce that he "lost", the other party scoring the house, kids, and both alimony and child support. Now, he is in a nasty cycle:

1: He is unemployed.
2: Ex hauls him into court demanding child support payments.
3: He is unemployed, no money to pay.
4: Judge tosses him in the county cooler for six months for failure to pay with a yet another fine.
5: He gets released, goes back to a friend's house, starts looking for a job... back to step #1.

This has been going on for three years now, usually 1-2 weeks after release before the local finest come and haul him back in front of the judge for another half-year in the pokey.

Re:Teaching physics to 3rd graders... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46943967)

Then he should response by fleeing and moving somewhere where they cannot find him.

Move to a new country or stop registering where you are.

Fuck that. I'd NEVER let someone push me around like that.

I'd put a bullet in a few local heads before I'd bow down.

Maybe women could stop dating violent men... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46942965)

... but that would be too easy.
Don't tell me: "He was so 'charming' when I met him", which means "I knew he was a violent scumbag and it turned me on because I'm sick", or "I knew he was a violent scumbag but I had been single for all of ten minutes and just HAD to 'get a man' at any cost"...

If most women wanted men who were kind, caring and gentle, then that's exactly what most men would turn into - OVERNIGHT.

Re:Maybe women could stop dating violent men... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46945029)

What about abused men? Women are violent, too. In fact, women [odt.co.nz] are responsible for violence in 50% of domestic violence cases. It's quite simple: it's not only men who are abusers. Say it out loud, and then say it to anybody who will listen. Reality is a bitch.

best use of TOR I've heard of (1)

vpness (921181) | about 5 months ago | (#46943201)

seems that the uses of TOR to date have been primarily 'negatively' for hackers, those avoiding the law in a number of ways (including true terrorists) and those who share (e.g. steal) copyrighted materials. 'Positive' use include or those who live in repressive regimes. This adds another positive use. How cool.

indeed (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 5 months ago | (#46943253)

"establishing a base level of technology education for staff with generally little to no tech chops who might not understand the gravity of clean communication lines until faced with a situation where their own phone or email gets hacked.'"

Yeah, they must really be idiots considering that it's the holy grail of what can happen. So you've got an angry ex-bf harrassing a woman and stalking her but besides gray area stuff, didn't technically do anything illegal. Oh wait, now he reset your password to your e-mail and accessed it? Go straight to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200 bitch because that's against federal laws. People with assholes exes like this are just waiting for a DUI or weapons violation or recorded threat to put them in jail. Digital crimes go through court like a damn water slide if there's enough evidence. Then tada, no more problem because the asshole is in jail.

physical shelters need electronic shelters too!!!! (1)

tommyatomic (924744) | about 5 months ago | (#46943467)

If a woman (OR MAN) is in a shelter for the purpose of protecting themselves from physical abuse the original act of which was psychologically scarring then the folks in the shelters need to be teaching those being sheltered some common sense. Stop using socal networking.

I have had multiple female friends and co-workers who have been properly traumatized by stalkers. The absolute first thing I tell them is to close their damn facebook account and wipe themselves off the internet. Social networking is the defacto #1 enabler for stalkers and pedophiles.

TOR is all well and good. But start with common sense and save people from themselves by training people not to use social networking.

In the old days shelters mainly had to worry that some douchebag would publish their address. Or one of the women at the shelter would tell an untrustworthy friend where they were.

Now you have people who nearly post their schedules online in the form of facebook posts, tweets, and foursquare checkins. I would hope the first thing they do is teach people not to enable their perpetrators. Stop using social networking.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?