Consent apps don’t stop sexual violence, so quit trying to make them
How apps are being used to address sexual abuse
Apps aimed at responding to sexual harassment and assault have circulated for at least a decade. With support from government initiatives, such as the Obama administration’s 2011Apps Against Abusechallenge, and global organisations, such as UN Women, they have been implemented in corporate environments, universities and mental health services.
These apps are not limited to documenting consent. Many are designed to offer emergency assistance, information and a means for survivors of sexual violence to report and build evidence against perpetrators. Proponents oftenframethese technologies as empowering tools that support women through the accessible and anonymous processing of data.
In the case of the proposed consent app, critics have noted that efforts to time-stamp consentfail to recognizeconsent can always be withdrawn. In addition, a person may consent out of pressure, fear of repercussions or intoxication.
If a person does indicate consent at some point but circumstances change, the record could be used to discredit their claims.
How digital apps fail to address sexual violence
The use of apps will not address many longstanding problems with common responses to sexual violence. Research indicates safety apps oftenreinforce rape myths, such as the idea that sexual assault is most often perpetrated by strangers. In reality,the vast majorityof rapes are committed by people the victims already know.
Usually marketed to women, these apps collect data from users through surveillance using persistent cookies and geolocational tracking. Even “anonymized” data can often be identifiable.
Digital tools can also enable violence. Abusive partners can use them forcyberstalking, giving them constant access to victims. Apps designed to encourage survivors to report violence raise similar concerns, because they fail to address the power imbalances that lead to authorities discrediting survivors’ accounts of violence.
Apps don’t change the bigger picture
The introduction of an app does not itself change the wider landscape in which sexual violence cases are handled.
The high-profile sex abuse scandal involvingLarry Nassar, a former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor convicted of a range of sex offences after being accused by more than 350 young women and girls, led toreformsthat included the SafeSport app.
This resulted in 1,800 reports of sexual misconduct or abuse within a year of the app’s introduction. However, alack of fundingmeant the reports could not be properly investigated, undermining organisational promises to enforce sanctions for sexual misconduct.
Read more:Anti-rape devices may have their uses, but they don’t address the ultimate problem
Poor implementation and cost-saving measures compromise users’ safety. In Canada and the United States, the hospitality industry is rolling out smart panic buttons to 1.2 million hotel and casino staff. This is a response to widespread sexual violence: aunion surveyfound 58% of employees had been sexually harassed by a guest and 65% of casino workers experienced unwanted touching.
Employers are now required by law to provide panic buttons, but they are turning to cheap and inferior devices, raisingsecurity concerns. Legislation does not prevent them using these devices to monitor the movements of their employees.
Who owns the data?
Even if implemented as intended, apps raise questions about data protection. They collect vast amounts of sensitive data, which is stored on digital databases and cloud servers that arevulnerable to cyberattacks.
Read more:The ugly truth: tech companies are tracking and misusing our data, and there’s little we can do
The data may be owned by private companies who can sell it on to other organisations, allowing authorities to circumvent privacy laws. Last month, it was revealed US Immigration and Customs Enforcementpurchased accessto theReuters CLEAR databasecontaining information about 400 million people whose data they could not legally collect on their own.
In short, apps don’t protect victims or their data.
Why we need to take this ‘bad idea’ seriously
Fuller, the NSW police commissioner, admitted his recommendation might be a bad idea. His idea was built on the premise that the important issue to address is making sure consent is clearly communicated. It misunderstands the nature of sexual violence, which is grounded in unequal power relations.
In practice, a consent app would be unlikely to protect victims. Research showsdata collectedthrough new forms of investigation often result in evidence that is used against victims’ wishes.
There are other reasons why the consent app is a bad idea. It perpetuatesmisguided assumptionsabout technology’s ability to “fix” societal harms. Consent, violence and accountability are not data problems. These complex issues require strong cultural and structural responses, not simply quantifiable and time-stamped data.
This article byKathryn Henne, Professor and Director, School of Regulation and Global Governance,Australian National University;Jenna Imad Harb, PhD Scholar,Australian National University, andRenee M. Shelby, Postdoctoral fellow, Sexualities Project,Northwestern University, is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
