Children are Especially Vulnerable to a New Means of Abuse: Smart Technology

You can lock your door with your phone, turn on the air conditioning with a swipe of your finger, and even set the temperature of your fridge from a state away. All these forms of smart technology are part of a new encroaching technological wave that, in many ways, seems innocuous enough. The reality, however, paints a different picture in the context of domestic abuse. Women have reported partners utilizing smart technology to terrorize them and attempt to control their lives, such as by changing the password on the front door or remotely repeatedly ringing the doorbell to create a sense of paranoia. Smart technology is unique in its ability to penetrate many facets of life and thereby strip individuals of control over simple but important things such as lights, thermostats, and locks. Given its potential role in domestic abuse, governments must ensure smart technology companies are held accountable for ensuring their products guard against such usage.

As instances of smart technology’s involvement in abuse have come to light in recent years, the UK so far appears more aware of the issue than most other countries, as a significant number of articles written on this issue come from British news sources. The issue is likely global in scale, however, and warrants international recognition as smart technology is becoming more commonplace, with the number of homes with smart technology globally projected to reach over 480 million this year. This issue is further complicated by the fact that most women, a vulnerable group to domestic abuse, are not even aware that smart technology can be used for abuse, with 48% of women unable to name which smart devices could be used for this purpose. Despite this ignorance, for women who do experience abuse, 72% have experienced how technology can amplify its effects.

Although partner abuse using smart technology has garnered increased attention, the use of smart technology in child abuse specifically remains in the shadows. Child abuse should not be overlooked, however, as 27% of all abuse cases involve child abuse as facilitated by technology, including smart technology. Among these cases, the most common type of abuse is stalking and monitoring, which smart technology is well-positioned to achieve. Indeed, in cases such as Mitchell v. Ramlow in the Idaho Supreme Court, a protection order was issued against Ramlow in part on the charge that he allegedly gave his and Mitchell’s son a smartwatch with tracking abilities for the purpose of stalking.

Drawing more attention to this issue in the context of child abuse is critical, as children may be the most vulnerable population to the misuse of smart technology since their autonomy is significantly limited, and they spend more of their time in the home. Moreover, children are at a disadvantage due to limited knowledge of the workings of technology and home appliances. Generally, only 30-40% of children under the age of 12 can even use smart appliances, such as voice-activated assistants, let alone understand how to change their settings. With these considerations, the call for preventing smart technology’s use in domestic abuse should specify child abuse as a main point of focus for designing responsible technology.

Though these issues are part of a new frontier, the international digital and human rights community has already begun grappling with the impact of smart technology on children’s privacy rights, providing a potential starting point for addressing smart technology in child abuse. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch have begun highlighting how smart children’s toys, powered by AI, gather data on children that can be used in advertising or even in discriminating against certain children on the basis of sensitive evidence gathered unbeknownst to the children or parents. In response to such concerns, the Science for Policy report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre sought to develop guidelines for the ethical implementation of AI and smart technology in the sphere of children’s lives using information gathered from key stakeholders, particularly children themselves. These requirements include transparency, accountability, and respecting children’s right to agency. If smart technology is held to these standards, it will assist with curbing abuse of these technologies, suggesting that the framework to address smart technology abuse is already being built through combatting companies’ exploitation of children’s data.

Some organizations, such as the Boston Children’s Wellness Lab, have also begun paying more attention to the implications of the lack of privacy that smart technology facilitates as it relates to children-parent dynamics. In particular, with respect to parental control software, the organization notes that one of the issues with this software is its all-or-nothing approach, wherein parents are given regulatory control with little to no room for children’s own self-regulation, and parents often only have the choice between blocking all content or none of it. At such points, addressing privacy concerns of smart technology and addressing the potential abusive implications of it overlap, indicating that solving one issue can assist with the other.

Addressing this overall harmful potential of smart technology and digital space, in general, has come to the attention of the UN, as it issued General Comment No. 25, which provides guidance for states in terms of applying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to children’s interactions with technology. In its comment, the UN highlights that states must impose regulations to protect children from violence facilitated by technology, and it calls for companies to be held responsible for designing technology in a way that does not violate children’s rights. It further states that companies should take a proactive approach to monitoring their products and their impact as they relate to potentially harming children’s rights. The UN also noted that countries have a responsibility to ensure that companies act in a manner consistent with these stipulations. These guidelines fall under the overarching principles set out by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, including acting in the best interest of the child and preserving their right to life, survival, and development.

Despite the recognition of the UN for the need for governmental and company action to address any issues that can result in harm to children as facilitated by technology, at present, the responsibility for guarding against the abuse of smart technology rests entirely on individuals rather than smart technology companies. Such companies’ inaction is aided by general ignorance as well as a lack of legal requirements in most countries to put safeguards in place. Against this backdrop, many organizations are calling for greater awareness surrounding how smart technology has been used in the abuse of both children and partners. Though tech companies cannot guarantee their technology will never be used for abuse, IBM showcases that these companies can mitigate the risks of abuse by implementing safety measures specific to smart devices.

IBM’s recommendations include calling on tech companies to consciously design their smart products’ operations with the intention of preventing abuse, such as by allowing users to choose what data is shared with other users. IBM also recommends that smart technology devices be designed to keep an exact record of which users have performed which actions to guard against the risk of smart technology being used to manipulate individuals and aid in memory distortion. Further recommendations include eliminating the smart device structure wherein one individual has primary control over the technology’s operation and increasing smart technologies’ ease of use, thereby limiting the risk that certain parties cannot understand how to use the technology. This final recommendation will likely be vital in the case of child abuse, as children may struggle to understand how the technology in their home is being used against them and how they can act to stop its use.

Such conscious designs can go a long way toward limiting smart tech’s role in domestic abuse, but these design initiatives must include a conscious reflection on the potential of products for child abuse, specifically in addition to partner abuse. Organizations, such as the Canadian Standards Association Group, have already begun advocating the need for a child-centric approach in ensuring smart technology cannot facilitate violating children’s privacy rights, and this framework can be extended to call for a child-centric approach when analyzing all of smart technology’s potential shortfalls, including abuse.

Tech companies are unlikely to take these steps without the proper incentives; consequently, public awareness is necessary to mobilize politicians to enact regulations on this industry. These regulations might align with IBM’s recommendations, such as in the form of legislation requiring an independent review of smart products before their release. Such a review could involve rating the technology’s potential risk for abuse and suggesting ways to mitigate this danger before the product hits the market. The political and technological communities have come together before in agreeing that children must be protected online from cyberbullying and sexual exploitation, and now the community must come together again to ensure that children are protected inside their own homes from the technology that brings the internet into their everyday interactions.