Women and Technology

By Justice Susan Glazebrook¹

Technology is a feature of modern life and it will no doubt become more and more important in our lives and those of our children. There are many ways in which it has changed our lives for the better. It does, however, have its dangers. For example, the same 3D printing technology that enables an amputated limb to be replaced quickly and cheaply can also be used to produce a weapon. Drones can transport life-saving blood to accidents, but they can also breach privacy rights, endanger aircraft and fire weapons.² Artificial intelligence can be used to diagnose illnesses. But on the other hand, it can also exacerbate bias and inequality. For instance, Amazon had to abandon an algorithm it was using to sort job applicants because it only selected male candidates.³ This was because for its dataset, the algorithm used the CVs of candidates over the previous ten years – which consisted predominantly of male candidates.

The New Zealand Government has recognised the need for safeguards when using algorithms in government decision making in a report published by Statistics New Zealand. This report recommended safeguards for their use, including that government departments and agencies must demonstrate clear public benefit from using an algorithm, recognise the possibility of bias and provide for ultimate human supervision and override.⁴ As a result of this report, the Algorithm Charter was instituted which has a number of Government departments as signatories.⁵ The intent of the charter is to ensure “New Zealanders have confidence in how government agencies use algorithms” and as a means of providing public accountability. The guiding principles of the Charter are transparency, partnership,⁶ people, data, ethics and oversight.⁷ Part of the framework is that algorithms are regularly reviewed and there is active engagement with those who may be greatest impacted by their use"

Perhaps the most visible way technology has transformed our lives is through the internet. Thanks to social media, we now have an unprecedented number of ways to keep in touch with friends and families, even if they are based in different countries. Access to the internet and mobile phones has also transformed the lives of many women: from allowing them to receive an education⁸ to gaining access to health services⁹ and developing businesses.¹⁰ Social media and the internet have also allowed greater global co-ordination around social issues. I mention, for example, the #MeToo movement.¹¹ And consumers are more and more able to put pressure on companies by taking concerted action to confront issues on social media.¹²

On the negative side, every time someone uses the internet or social media, they leave a digital footprint. Privacy International has reported that medical apps, such as those that monitor heartrates, menstrual and fertility cycles, share data with Facebook which can then tailor advertisements based on the results.¹³ Most damningly, it also found that ‘opting out’ through the app or Facebook settings made no difference to the information being shared.¹⁴ To add to the difficulty, users will often not know what information companies are collecting, how they are collecting it and what they are collecting it for. The terms and conditions of use tend to be lengthy and written in legalese, making it unlikely that they are even read, let alone understood.¹⁵

I now turn to the benefits and dangers of technology with regard to violence and harassment directed against women and children, mostly in a domestic violence context. I have divided my remarks into the good, the bad and the even worse.

I start with the good

In New Zealand, technology has been utilised to help keep women and children safe after incidents of domestic violence. When attending the scene of domestic violence incidents, the New Zealand police use two algorithms that assess the risk of future offending.¹⁶ This helps them decide on an appropriate response, both for the immediate situation and for later measures, such as ongoing protection for the victims or prosecution decisions. The tools support, but do not replace, human judgement in situations that can be complex and challenging.

More generally, technology enables women and children to keep in touch with support networks of friends and families. There are also women-focused apps available that allow women to manage their safety,¹⁷ including women-only ride shares.¹⁸ Electronic tracking can also protect victims while offenders or alleged offenders are out on bail or parole or subject to conditions of restraining or protection orders.¹⁹

The New Zealand Police are also increasingly taking video statements from victims at the scene or soon after.²⁰ This ensures that victims provide a first-hand account in their own words while their memory is fresh. Such video interviews may be admissible in evidence in court, even if later victims decide they do not wish to pursue the case or retract their evidence.²¹

Technology has also greatly enhanced the methods available to domestic abusers who exercise coercive control over their victims. This type of abuse involves a pattern of behaviour where the abuser utilises intimidation, often paired with physical victimisation, to create dependence, isolation and a climate of fear.²⁷

With technology the abuser can be ever present even after the relationship has ended. There is now, for example, the ability to monitor from a distance through tracking use of email accounts, banking passwords, spyware and monitoring browsing histories. As an example in Australia, an ex-partner found out the location of a women’s refuge centre after he put a tracking device in his daughter’s doll at an access handover.²⁸ In another example from the US, a stalker tricked an ex-partner into installing spyware onto her computer by sending her an email, which upon being opened, automatically installed the spyware onto her computer without any notification.²⁹

And now I turn to the even worse

I deal in this section with issues related to cyber bullying and harassment of children, as well as the issue of self-harm. I characterise these issues as even worse because they involve children, who are our future and who should be protected from avoidable harm, while of course being left the freedom to develop their own lives as they would wish.

Children now often have access to the internet through personal devices which means less supervision over content accessed and over their interactions with others. This makes it harder to protect them. There have been several high-profile cases globally of young people committing suicide as a result of cyber bullying. In 2015, UK teenager Ronan Hughes committed suicide after being blackmailed by scammers who had tricked him into sharing intimate pictures that were then shared with his friends when he failed to pay the ransom.³⁰

There is also concern about young people accessing sites which glorify self-harm and eating disorders. While the terms of use usually set a minimum age, the inability of sites to verify age means that many children are able to access these sites. Thirty families in the UK have accused social media companies of aiding their children’s suicides by hosting pro-suicide content on their sites, including images of self-harm.³¹ In a recent UK case, teenager Molly Russell’s account continued to receive pro self-harm content even after her suicide. These posts continued due to algorithms that suggest content based on previous activity.³²

So what can be done?

First, many of these behaviours are covered to some extent by existing legislation, including criminal legislation and domestic violence legislation.³³ But this legislation has its limitations, often because online abuse was not in contemplation when the legislation was passed. Some jurisdictions, including New Zealand, do have some specialist legislation dealing with certain types of cyber abuse³⁴ but this legislation often still has limitations.³⁵ One of the issues is the fact that internet providers and content hosting sites are often located offshore and are essentially self regulating. Thus far, the technology involved and social media business models have been insufficiently understood outside of the technology sector to be regulated appropriately.³⁶ This is likely due to the speed at which technology has developed and the treatment of algorithms as trade secrets.

In the past, the view has been that social media companies are not publishers but were merely platforms for sharing content, thus bearing no responsibility for dangerous content hosted on their websites.³⁷ Although social media companies are now starting to try and control content this is still largely at their discretion and using their views on what is appropriate or not. Facebook, for example, has faced criticism for taking down sites promoting breast feeding or showing pride after breast cancer surgery, while leaving intact very damaging material.³⁸

Some commentators have suggested that radical reforms are needed. One suggestion was that there should be a total ban on certain content and that companies should have strict liability for harm.³⁹ It was suggested that this be paired with requiring public disclosure of legal compliance, personal liability for CEOs or managers and a longer vesting period for managerial compensation.⁴⁰

A green paper was released in the UK in 2017 regarding internet safety and the types of harm it can cause.⁴¹ The paper established three key principles:⁴²

(a)                What is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online; 

(b)               All users should be empowered to manage online risks and stay safe; and 

(c)                Technology companies have a responsibility to their users.

The UK is also currently considering several legislative provisions to enforce corporate responsibility onto social media giants.⁴³ These include the establishment of a regulatory body; fines up to 17.5 million pounds; corporate manslaughter charges; and personal criminal liability for CEOs.⁴⁴ The Online Safety Bill is still in its draft phase but its coverage is broad. It seeks to impose duties of care on providers of user to user services.⁴⁵ It has three aims: to prevent illegal content online, to protect children from harmful material and to protect adults from legal but harmful content.⁴⁶ Providers are obliged to carry out risk assessments on content both to children and adults.⁴⁷

The Bill has been criticised for not going far enough.⁴⁸ In its Select Committee process, further recommendations were made, including a restructure of the Bill completely as in its current format it is too complex.⁴⁹ The Committee also noted there was no clarity about what the legislation seeks to achieve.⁵⁰ Another recommendation was in relation to tackling foreseeable harm – such as auto-play features, the use of algorithms promoting content and geolocation data remaining on uploaded photographs, potentially providing locational data for those who are subject to family violence.⁵¹ User to user services who fail to comply with the legislation “face fines of up to 18 million pounds or 10 per cent of their annual income, whichever is greater.⁵²

Another measure increasingly being taken is the establishment of specialised tribunals or agencies to mitigate and educate about online harm. With the proposed Online Safety Bill in the UK, The Office of Communications (OFCOM) will be the body overseeing the legislation.⁵³ It will have wide enforcement powers, including the power to compel user to user services to attend an interview with them,⁵⁴ the ability to impose fines, enforcements actions and penalty notices.⁵⁵ The Select Committee also recommended that OFCOM be given even greater powers.⁵⁶

Education is also going to play a large part in reforming the internet. “Internet Legends” is a Google developed game used throughout UK primary schools to educate on internet safety.⁵⁷ New Zealand also has its own school programme run by NetSafe.⁵⁸ In New Zealand, NetSafe is the agency established to receive complaints and provide assistance around misuse of the internet.⁵⁹

So to conclude