Academic researchers want to hear from private investigators (PIs) and others to learn about hidden device detection, writes Mark Rowe.
While ‘bug sweeps’ and counter-surveillance against corporate espionage is a well-known niche in private security, less well known is the sheer scope in the home for connected devices to play a part in domestic and inter-personal abuse, and that is the focus for a PhD researcher, Akhil Polamarasetty, at University College London (UCL), supervised by Dr Leonie Tanczer, an Associate Professor in International Security and Emerging Technologies at UCL. One thing Akhil points to is the equipment once available only (because of the cost) to technical counter-surveillance measures (TCSM) specialists is now cheap enough for ordinary people – and such GPS and other trackers and small cameras might be misused. Something Akhil wants to understand is what judgements and guidelines are in place, so that PIs’ clients are protected from further harm. He’d like to ask TCSM and digital forensics service operators: what makes a good ‘bug sweep’ (whether of a home, vehicle or a phone), with the eventual hope of producing a guideline for good practice. He wants to understand how clients reach a PI, and how a PI makes a decision about when to decline a request, or take on a case. What are the ethics and legalities for a PI in such surveillance cases, what codes of conduct are PIs following. What kind of tech does a TSCM operator us, and what influences their operation.
Hyper-vigilance
A stalker or someone carrying out domestic abuse or voyeurism might not be using location trackers; but they might say they are, enough to make the victim or survivor suspect everyday objects – everything that’s in their home. In a word, ‘hyper-vigilance’, a problem in itself, and it’s hard for someone to know how or even if they are being stalked, and what to do if they do find a suspect device (which raises the question of how can charities in this field give good advice). Akhil turns to the challenge for law enforcement. Often there’s no physical abuse involved, meaning a case doesn’t get escalated. Another reason for those fearing they’re under surveillance and seeking peace of mind to turn to private firms.
Gaslighting
Speaking to Professional Security, Dr Leonie Tanczer took up the story. In such cases of ‘intimate partner violence’ there may be an element of gaslighting. Someone frightened and intimated doesn’t know what’s real, because of what the perpetrator claims (such as, that they’ve installed cameras in the home). Or a cyber equivalent might be a claim by the perpetrator (perhaps after a separation or divorce) that they have hired a hacker, to monitor. “They might sound ludicrous, some of the statements, but in terms of intimate partner violence, you are so extraordinarily anxious, that you don’t know what you can and can’t trust.” She went on to the gender dimension: “Unfortunately domestic abuse and violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a rampant issue and while intimate partner violence can affect any gender, at any age, the statistics show it’s affecting, and most violently affecting, women and girls.” And often in the home it’s the man in charge of the tech – deciding what to buy, and install, and when it’s time to buy something new. Researchers have heard from women that they aren’t ‘tech savvy’; tech is not something they feel confident about. That can be exploited; as shown in a published study by Akhil. Several women blamed themselves, their alleged lack of technical capability, for not being able to find surveillance devices. She echoed Akhil, that it’s far easier for society to think of abuse as something physical; someone slumped in a corner, given a black eye, beaten or sexually harassed. Other forms of abuse – coercion and control, financial abuse, or ‘technologically facilitated violence’ aren’t as obvious. Hence research that has already shown, tech abuse is quite common in domestic homicide.
They are also interested in speaking to private investigators offering covert investigation (such as tracing) and domestic surveillance cases. The questions for these PIs are similar to the ones they would like to ask the TSCM practitioners:
- What type of clients do they have, and how do they reach them?
- What are the guidelines (ethical and legal) shaping their practice? How do they decide which cases are appropriate or not? Do they consider potential harm or unintended consequences and what steps are taken to avoid it?
- How do they interact with technology in their practice (such as, use of cameras, trackers, OSINT tools), and do they have best practices around these as well?
The UCL academics, like academics generally, stress confidentiality, for the individuals and organisations interviewed, approached in the first instance via email, in what is (and seems likely to stay) a self-regulated industry.
