Stalking: Final Report (html)

3. Responses to cyberstalking

Overview

• Cyberstalking is stalking using information and communication technology. In Victoria, cyberstalking is covered by the stalking offence, which is ‘technologically neutral’.^[1]

• People who experience cyberstalking face barriers to disclosing and reporting it and getting an outcome in the justice system.

• Cyberstalking is a crime that is not well understood. People need to know more about what it is, how to stay safe online, and who can help.

• People who experience cyberstalking need quick and practical support, including replacement phones and services to check digital safety.

• The police response to cyberstalking needs to improve and must be part of the response to stalking.

• Australian Government work on online safety and countering technology-facilitated abuse is part of the response to cyberstalking.

Cyberstalking is a growing social problem

3.1 Cyberstalking is a type of technology-facilitated abuse. It is stalking that uses information and communication technology.^[4]

3.2 Cyberstalking can occur alongside stalking behaviours that do not involve technology. Cyberstalking that begins online may turn into stalking in person or physical violence, or vice versa.^[5]

3.3 Technology is changing rapidly, and people, businesses and governments are becoming more dependent on technology, social media and other online systems. At the same time, cyberstalking is becoming a significant and growing social problem.^[6]

3.4 Technology enables people who stalk to ‘infiltrate deeper into victims’ lives.’^[7] People may be targeted in many unfamiliar ways, sometimes without their knowledge.

3.5 Cyberstalking can feel impossible to escape, creating ‘a sense of omnipresence’. It can remove the usual boundaries of physical space and make a person feel unsafe.^[8]

3.6 Cyberstalking is under-reported in part because it is not well understood.^[9]

3.7 This chapter is about the challenges of responding to cyberstalking and how to improve the response. Challenges include:

• The Office of the eSafety Commissioner (eSafety),^[10] state and federal governments all need to be involved in regulating and responding to this harm.^[11]

• The role and responsibilities of online service providers need to be considered, especially their responsibilities for making their services and platforms safe and responding to reports of cyberstalking.^[12]

• For the police, cyberstalking requires a shift in how they think about stalking, and new methods of investigation.

What is cyberstalking?

3.8 Cyberstalking has been defined by some researchers as repetitive and unwanted contact with a person using information and communication technology, and causing that person to feel fear.^[13] Cyberstalking becomes a crime when this contact forms a ‘course of conduct’ with a specific intent to cause harm or fear.^[14] (We discuss the stalking offence and its elements in Chapter 7.)

3.9 While the defining characteristics of stalking and cyberstalking are the same,^[15] the methods used are different.

3.10 People who cyberstalk may use a range of online and offline technologies:

• global positioning system (GPS) trackers

• keyloggers^[16]

• hidden cameras or webcams

• audio bugs, microphones, telephones

• location-based dating apps

• spyware, mobile stalker apps

• email accounts

• social media

• online maps^[17]

• reverse image searches^[18]

• ‘find my device’ services

• bluetooth.^[19]

3.11 Examples of cyberstalking behaviours include:

• sending or posting offensive online messages, images or personal information

• impersonating someone online

• following, monitoring or tracking a person’s location and activities.^[20]

3.12 People who stalk may be part of underground or ‘dark web’ groups where they share new methods of technology-facilitated abuse.^[21]

3.13 Cyberstalking can occur in different contexts, such as family violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence and workplace bullying.^[22]

3.14 Cyberstalking shares elements of stalking: surveillance, repetition, intrusion and degradation. We explained these concepts in our consultation paper.^[23]

3.15 Cyberstalking can overlap with cyberbullying, image-based abuse and online harassment.^[24] It is defined by the technology-facilitated behaviours being repeated and persistent.

3.16 A course of conduct for stalking can be made up of the same conduct as other standalone offences, such as intimate image-based abuse offences.^[25] Cyberbullying and online harassment, which is bullying and harassment over digital devices and platforms, are covered under the stalking offence.^[26]

Cyberstalking can have serious effects

3.17 Victim survivors of cyberstalking experience similar serious effects to people who experience other kinds of stalking:^[27] anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. (See Chapter 2.)

3.18 The ‘sense of omnipresence’ that cyberstalking creates can make people feel unsafe and unable to use technology freely. They may isolate themselves from their social and support networks.^[28]

3.19 People who experience cyberstalking may carry a financial burden, such as the cost of increased security measures.^[29]

3.20 The Alannah and Madeline Foundation told us that children who experience cyberstalking can become disengaged from school and education.^[30]

3.21 People from culturally diverse communities may experience additional impacts. For example, women who wear head coverings for religious or cultural reasons might experience shame from having their photographs posted online without their head covering. They may also experience honour-based threats or violence.^[31]

What do we know about cyberstalking in the community?

3.22 There have been increasing efforts to understand stalking and technology-facilitated abuse in a family violence context.^[32] Less attention has been given to non-family violence cyberstalking.

3.23 Some valuable research exists on non-family violence cyberstalking, but it has limitations such as small sample sizes and different definitions of cyberstalking.^[33] More in-depth research is needed.^[34]

3.24 In the meantime, research on technology-facilitated abuse in general, as well as cyberstalking research from different parts of the world, can help us understand the problem.

How common is cyberstalking?

3.25 Studies provide very different estimates of how common cyberstalking is, ranging from 3.7 per cent to 82 per cent of victimisation in the groups studied.^[35] Cyberstalking studies in university settings around the world indicate rates of victimisation ranging from one per cent to 41 per cent.^[36]

3.26 Studies on technology-facilitated abuse or online harassment can provide a sense of how common cyberstalking is. For example:

• A 2020 report from eSafety found that 67 per cent of Australian adults had had a negative experience online in a recent one-year period, which included cyberstalking-related behaviour.^[37]

• In a report on girls’ and young women’s online experiences across 32 countries, including Australia, more than half had experienced online harassment or abuse, including cyberstalking.^[38]

3.27 In a recent survey of victim support workers across Australia, the most common types of technology-facilitated abuse reported were ‘monitoring, stalking or controlling’.^[39]

3.28 The true prevalence of cyberstalking is unknown, but research suggests that it is likely to be greater than what is reported.^[40]

Cyberstalking is gendered

3.29 Research indicates that cyberstalking is gendered, which is consistent with patterns of family violence and sexual violence and harassment. It is often carried out by men against women and girls.^[41]

3.30 This is also consistent with broader research on technology-facilitated abuse. Around 70 per cent of the online harm reports that eSafety receives are from Australian women and girls.^[42]

3.31 As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women explains, while technology can empower women and girls, they have also ‘increasingly voiced their concern at harmful, sexist, misogynistic and violent content and behaviour online’.^[43]

3.32 Men also experience cyberstalking.^[44] Some research suggests that women cyberstalk more than men, and that men report more online victimisation than women.^[45]

Cyberstalking affects a range of people

3.33 People who experience cyberstalking may be targeted because of their gender identity, sexuality, race or ability.^[46]

3.34 The Victorian Pride Lobby highlighted research that indicates cyberstalking among gay and bisexual men is common.^[47] It said that people in the public eye, such as political candidates and those with online platforms, can be targets of cyberstalking based on their sexual orientation.^[48]

3.35 One 2020 study suggests that transgender people experience more technology-facilitated abuse and harassment compared with heterosexual cisgender individuals.^[49]

3.36 For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women living in remote and regional areas, cyberstalking appears to be one of the most common types of technology-facilitated abuse they experience. Aboriginal women living in urban areas also experience technology-facilitated abuse, including cyberstalking.^[50]

3.37 One study in a family violence setting found that culturally and linguistically diverse and refugee women who experience technology-facilitated abuse may be taken advantage of due to their circumstances. These circumstances may include uncertain residency status, language barriers or lack of awareness about laws.^[51]

3.38 Women with intellectual or cognitive disabilities may experience technology-facilitated abuse more than other people. For example, any communication difficulties they have could be exploited by the person who stalks. The victim survivor may also depend for their care on the person who is stalking them.^[52]

3.39 There are, of course, many more communities whose experiences matter. The communities we discuss here are themselves diverse. More research into the frequency of cyberstalking in diverse communities is needed.^[53] In Chapter 2, we recommend the Victorian Government improve data on stalking.

Children and young people have a different experience of cyberstalking

3.40 A 2016 study suggested that the most common forms of technology-facilitated abuse against children and young people are monitoring and stalking behaviours.^[54]

3.41 It appears that children and young people are more likely to experience cyberstalking compared to adults and older people.^[55] As ‘digital natives’,^[56] children and young people are in an online environment every day, navigating ‘issues of relationships, identity, and intimacy’.^[57] They may therefore be more prone than adults to experiencing this harmful behaviour.^[58]

3.42 For children and young people, cyberstalking may be an extension of cyberbullying.^[59] It is estimated that one in five young Australians has experienced cyberbullying behaviour.^[60] Research by eSafety indicates that 30 per cent of teenagers reported cyberbullying at school.^[61]

3.43 We heard that cyberstalking became worse during coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdowns.^[62] This affected children and young people more than others because they were relying on technology for their education and social connection.^[63]

What are the legal and regulatory responses to cyberstalking?

3.44 The response to cyberstalking includes legal avenues through criminal and civil law and a regulatory response through eSafety (see Table 6).

Table 6: Examples of legal and regulatory responses to cyberstalking

3.45 Cyberstalking can fall under the criminal offence of stalking in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), and is investigated by Victoria Police. In Chapter 7 we outline the stalking offence in more detail.

3.46 Victoria’s stalking offence is sufficiently ‘technologically neutral’ to cover cyberstalking.^[74]

3.47 Other possible legal responses to cyberstalking are outlined in Table 6 above. Federal offences are investigated by the Australian Federal Police, and sometimes federal offences are pursued instead of the Victorian offence.^[75] However, our focus is Victorian law, and when we refer to ‘police’ we mean Victoria Police.

3.48 eSafety is an Australian Government authority responsible for keeping Australians safe online. It provides a regulatory response to some technology-facilitated harms under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth). Its functions include:

• promoting online safety for Australians

• managing a complaints system for cyberbullying material

• managing a complaints system for cyber‑abuse material

• managing a complaints and objections system for non‑consensual sharing of intimate images.^[76]

3.49 eSafety has a range of powers to help adults and children deal with harmful behaviours such as intimate image-based abuse and cyberbullying (see Table 6). People can contact eSafety directly for help and information.

3.50 In some cases, eSafety can help remove the harmful content from online platforms.^[77]

3.51 eSafety has online information on how to identify technology-facilitated abuse and develop an online safety plan.^[78]

3.52 Even with these legal and regulatory options, cyberstalking can be difficult to address. The reasons for this are discussed next.

Complexities of the legal and regulatory responses

3.53 To collect evidence of cyberstalking, it is essential that service providers cooperate. They have access to key information about incidents that could be used to address cyberstalking behaviour.^[79]

3.54 We heard support for increasing regulation of online service providers and improving their cooperation with police officers.^[80] This would assist police to progress investigations.^[81]

3.55 In a roundtable discussion on cyberstalking we heard that some providers cooperate with police officers, but are not legally required to. They are also not required to do anything differently if their platform is being used for stalking.^[82]

3.56 Victoria Police stated that reform is needed to ensure they can get the information they need from online service providers in a timely way.^[83] Suggestions included:

• enforceable responsibilities on providers to support police investigations^[84]

• agreements with technology companies in relation to cyberstalking against any Victorian

• a code of conduct for internet and social media companies^[85]

• transparency around the policies and practices an online company will follow in responding to reports.^[86]

3.57 There is a limit to what we can recommend in this area:

• Many of these issues are regulated by federal laws and sit outside the Victorian jurisdiction. The Australian Government is also involved in the response to cyberstalking. Our focus is on Victorian law and what the Victorian Government can do in response.

• Cyberstalking overlaps with other technology-facilitated harms, online safety issues, privacy and data protection.^[87] It is a feature of family violence and sexual violence. The scope of our inquiry is limited to stalking.

3.58 A broad, systemic and cross-jurisdictional response is needed to properly tackle technology-facilitated abuse in all its forms.

What are the barriers to seeking help for cyberstalking?

3.59 There are significant barriers to people seeking help for technology-facilitated abuse.^[88] Seeking help could include reporting the behaviour to police or contacting support services. In our consultation paper we asked about these barriers.^[89]

3.60 The barriers to seeking and getting help for cyberstalking we heard about included:

• Lack of knowledge about the technology^[90]—People may be monitored or tracked without their knowledge.^[91] A lack of knowledge about cyberstalking technology may be more pronounced in some communities, such as amongst Aboriginal women.^[92]

• Cyberstalking may be treated as bullying—This often results in disciplinary actions within a school setting, rather than a legal response to stalking.^[93] (However, as we discuss in Chapter 6, alternative pathways for children and young people might be better than a legal response.)

3.61 Most other barriers to seeking help for cyberstalking are similar to the barriers for stalking (see Chapter 2). These include:

• people not being aware that the behaviour they are experiencing is cyberstalking

• people minimising the harm they are experiencing—for example, among young people, some controlling and harassing behaviours online may be normalised^[94]

• fear of feeling shame or embarrassment, or of being blamed

• fear that reporting the behaviour will lead to bad consequences—for example, in the case of young people at school, having their devices taken away^[95]

• difficulty in finding up-to-date, relevant information and help^[96]

• doubt that help is possible, especially where the identity of the person cyberstalking is unknown.^[97]

3.62 We heard that some communities do not trust police, especially if they have faced discrimination in the past, such as Aboriginal people and LGBTIQA+ people.^[98]

There should be public education about cyberstalking

3.63 Lack of awareness is a barrier to people seeking help for cyberstalking. Many community members do not know what cyberstalking is, how it is committed, where to get help and how to stay safe.^[99]

3.64 In response to the question in our consultation paper, ‘If a person suspects that they are being kept under surveillance using cyberstalking, what kind of help do they need to ensure that they are safe?’, one victim survivor replied, ‘That is an excellent question, and I wish I [had] the answer for it, so I can help myself’.^[100]

3.65 In Chapter 4 we discuss why more education is needed on stalking, including cyberstalking, so that people who are being harmed by cyberstalking can speak up and seek support or justice.

What information about cyberstalking is important?

3.66 In Chapter 4 we outline information about stalking that should become common knowledge, which should include information about cyberstalking. People should be able to identify cyberstalking as a crime, know how to report it to the police, and understand where else they can seek help.^[101]

3.67 Information on the support and justice options for people who are stalked, and what steps they can take, should include options specific to cyberstalking,^[102] including ways to self-help. As one person who experienced stalking told us:

3.68 Information about support and justice options is especially important in relation to cyberstalking, given the complexity of the legal and regulatory responses (see Table 6). A victim survivor may need to understand their options at a federal and state level, and through legal and regulatory avenues, which is a challenging task. As we discuss in Chapter 4, the information is found in different places and it is hard for a person to form a complete picture of their options.

3.69 We heard that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is a useful source of information and help, but not everyone in the community knows about it.^[104]

3.70 The eSafety website describes cyberstalking as a type of online abuse, and lists examples of cyberstalking behaviours. It explains that those experiencing cyberstalking should immediately contact their local police.^[105] However, there are gaps in the information on eSafety’s website. For example:

• It only discusses family violence stalking.

• The list of ‘classroom resources’ covers a range of related topics, including ‘unwanted contact’ and ‘cyberbullying’, but does not address cyberstalking specifically.^[106]

• General resources, such as the ‘YeS Project’ workshop handbook, contain only very brief references to stalking and the fact that it is a crime.^[107]

How should public education be delivered?

3.71 Children and young people appear to be more likely than adults to be cyberstalked, so they should receive more tailored information on cyberstalking.

3.72 Improving digital literacy and awareness about online safety measures is a critical part of responding to cyberstalking. Improving parents’ digital literacy and awareness would help children and young people who are experiencing cyberstalking.^[108]

3.73 The Alannah and Madeline Foundation suggested that digital literacy and awareness could be included in existing school-age programs and curricula such as the Respectful Relationships curriculum. It suggested further work needed to be done on stalking, such as:

• being an active bystander

• supporting friends who are experiencing harm

• making ethical choices

• knowing when to encourage someone to seek help

• knowing how to respond to something that is disturbing you.^[109]

3.74 Existing education programs on digital literacy and cyberstalking may provide a starting point (see box).

Where can people get help and support for cyberstalking?

3.75 There are no support services that specialise in helping people who are experiencing non-family violence stalking. In contrast, people who experience stalking in situations of family or sexual violence can access support through specialist services.

3.76 We heard that there is a gap in victim support where people experience cyberstalking but do not also experience family or sexual violence. They cannot access victim support for technology-facilitated abuse.^[117]

3.77 In our consultation paper we asked where people can go for help if they are being cyberstalked. These avenues are described in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Victim support for cyberstalking

People who experience cyberstalking need more support

3.78 While cyberstalking appears to be a growing problem,^[124] Table 7 indicates that support is limited and often only available to victim survivors of family violence.

3.79 For the services that do exist, it is difficult to keep up with the demand. More resources and investment are needed. WESNET told us about the ‘large gap’ between its capacity and public demand.^[125]

3.80 Expanding and funding support for everyone who experiences cyberstalking should be a priority for government. This support should be practical, timely and safe, and include:

• safety checks on devices and online networks to detect and stop the cyberstalking

• access to replacement devices

• support to collect evidence, if needed.

3.81 This is similar to support and services already available for people who are cyberstalked in family violence contexts.

Support needs to be practical

3.82 In our consultation paper we asked what kind of help a person needs if they suspect they are being cyberstalked.

3.83 One person told us about the practical and financial burden of being cyberstalked:

3.84 A participant at the cyberstalking roundtable told us that they very commonly receive requests for practical help from frontline support workers and victim survivors, including requests for:^[127]

• safety check services (for example, ‘tech-sweeping’ or device cleaning services)^[128]

• removal of physical or digital tracking devices^[129]

• replacement device services^[130] (for example a replacement phone).

3.85 People experiencing cyberstalking need these practical supports to identify and stop the abuse so that they can move forward with their lives. Some might need help collecting evidence and a forensic analysis.^[131] We also heard that people need help with accessing safe technology so that they can participate safely in social and economic life.^[132]

3.86 The Victims of Crime Commissioner recommended that victim support services be ‘bolstered to enhance the availability of ongoing technology support as a key part of safety planning’. The Commissioner recommended the ‘provision of flexible support packages’ of practical technical support.^[133]

Support needs to be timely

3.87 We heard that the services in place for cyberstalking are not frontline crisis response services. There may be a gap in services where a victim survivor’s safety is under imminent threat.^[134]

3.88 We heard that Victoria Police has invested considerably in its forensic capabilities. This has resulted in a shorter wait time for victim survivors to have their phones analysed, from 31 months to just over 12 months. This is still a long wait and victim survivors may choose not to bother. Victoria Police told us that it does not have capacity to meet all the requests it gets for analysis of phones. In 2020 alone, there was an increase of 67 per cent in requests for digital forensic services, compared to 2018.^[135]

3.89 Practical support must be timely so that victim survivors are not disconnected from online spaces and their devices for long periods of time. These are their links to family, friends, services and the justice system. For some people, they might be a lifeline.

3.90 As we discuss in Chapter 5, timely support also means the cyberstalking can be detected and stopped as soon as possible.

Support needs to be regulated and safe

3.91 We heard that private technology companies can take advantage of victim survivors by price gouging.^[136] We heard of companies charging roughly $5000–6000 to check cars and phones.^[137]

3.92 eSafety told us that while practical support such as tech-sweeping services are critical, this support lacks a coordinated approach:

there is a gap in service provision for circumstances where there are unsafe intentions and a fear that a device may be corrupted with tracking software or worse, that there is physical tracking occurring, or a camera located in the house, car, or amongst personal possessions. Where do people, mainly women, take these belongings to have them scanned or swept to see if anything malicious is there? There are some services available, but they are not coordinated under an umbrella, or central referral point. There is no accreditation to that.^[138]

3.93 Some people we consulted suggested more regulation in this area, and ‘a consumer review process’ for these services overseen by experts or victim support organisations.^[139] Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria stated that regulation is needed to ‘safeguard against perpetrators infiltrating their systems’.^[140] Victoria Police noted that services which help with the identification and removal of tracking devices should not also be able to offer installation services to anyone.^[141]

3.94 Victim survivors need to know that when they seek help they will be treated in a respectful and fair way and will not be subject to further harm. We recommend that for victim survivors of cyberstalking, support is also regulated and safe (see Chapter 5).

Police responses to cyberstalking need to improve

3.95 Victim survivors report cyberstalking to police to ‘gain support and to provide evidence for investigation’.^[142] But research suggests that the support and response they receive can be inadequate.^[143]

The police response too often includes ‘unplugging’

3.96 We heard that it is common for victim survivors to be told by police to stop using their device or participating in online spaces to stop the cyberstalking.^[150] This is consistent with feedback we received from victim survivors. A reason for this might be that police lack enough awareness of cyberstalking, so they do not identify the behaviour or know how to assist victim survivors.^[151]

3.97 As a number of organisations told us, ‘unplugging’ is not the right solution for victim survivors.^[152] The Alannah and Madeline Foundation explained:

The advice to withdraw from technology or cyber spaces is not appropriate as it is punishing the person being stalked, which isn’t fair to them. It is increasingly not an option to be offline, and the idea of shutting down social media profiles, especially for young people, often isn’t a viable option.^[153]

3.98 The Victorian Pride Lobby similarly told us that for LGBTIQA+ people running for political office, the police might see the experience of cyberstalking as ‘expected’ when you ‘put yourself out there’. They saw this as leading to advice that victim survivors stop or adapt their behaviour, instead of police stopping the behaviour of the people who stalk.^[154]

3.99 Recent research indicates that victim support services may be reluctant to refer victim survivors of cyberstalking to police because of concerns about their response.^[155] The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service reported that it has ‘struggled to refer young people to areas of the police that we are comfortable would be appropriately trained to deal with offences such as cyber stalking and online blackmail’.^[156]

Cyberstalking can be difficult for police to investigate

3.100 When police do identify cyberstalking behaviours and decide to investigate, they may face practical difficulties, as outlined in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Why cyberstalking can be difficult to address through a criminal justice response

Responses to cyberstalking should be part of the police response to stalking

3.101 As discussed above, cyberstalking falls within the legal definition of stalking.

3.102 Yet it is often viewed differently from more traditional forms of stalking and may not be considered by some to be stalking at all.^[167] As one person who reported cyberstalking to the police in the last 2–5 years said, ‘The victims should be made to feel safe and offered [an intervention order] even if it is online only.’^[168]

3.103 A number of organisations were in favour of building police capacity to respond to cyberstalking through:

• increasing the use of digital forensic expertise to investigate cyberstalking^[169]

• evidence-based training on the nature of cyberstalking and collecting evidence^[170]

• collaborating with eSafety and other online safety experts.^[171]

3.104 In our interim report we made recommendations to improve how Victoria Police identifies and responds to reports of stalking by:

• training frontline officers to enhance their understanding of stalking behaviours as set out in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

• developing guidance for frontline officers for interviewing and communicating with victim survivors of stalking

• developing guidance for identifying and gathering information about stalking for frontline police

• referring complex cases to specialist police for investigation where required

• referring victim survivors of stalking to external services, including victim support

• using ‘The Whole Story’ investigative framework for stalking reports.^[172]

3.105 These recommendations should also apply to improving police responses to cyberstalking when victim survivors make reports. Further training would help the police:

• avoid inadequate responses, such as telling victim survivors to ‘unplug’

• make decisions about how to progress a report, for example by referring a case on to a specialist team or victim support services

• collect digital evidence to support a PSIO or criminal charge.^[173]

3.106 Training for cyberstalking could include:

• improving officers’ technological skills and expertise

• understanding advances in technology

• methods and tools used by people to cyberstalk

• cyberstalking behaviour patterns^[174]

• improving officers’ understanding of how a ‘course of conduct’ translates to online behaviour.^[175]

3.107 The Whole Story approach could help police officers by giving them a complete picture of how a victim survivor is being harmed using technology.

3.108 Experts on cyberstalking stress the need for police officers to have the right tools and technology at their disposal for an effective investigation.^[176]

3.109 The police response should include a pathway to services that provide technological support for cyberstalking. These services should be able to accept referrals from police to assist people who experience non-family violence stalking.^[177]

3.110 These recommendations would complement Victoria Police’s cybercrime division, launched in 2021 to build Victoria Police’s capacity to fight cyber and technology-enabled crime.^[178]

3.111 Victoria Police told us that intimate image-based abuse can occur in the context of cyberstalking, and that intimate image-based abuse offences should be reviewed ‘to ensure police are sufficiently empowered to investigate and enforce these crimes’.^[179]

3.112 In our report Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences (2021), we recommended that intimate image-based abuse offences be upgraded from summary offences to indictable offences. One of the reasons we suggested this change is to increase Victoria Police’s powers to investigate these matters, issue warrants and collect digital evidence.^[180] Implementing this recommendation would also strengthen police investigative powers in relation to cyberstalking when it includes intimate image-based abuse.

Work is under way to keep people safe online

3.113 Work is being done at the state and federal levels in Australia to tackle technology-facilitated abuse, cybercrime and improve online safety.^[181]

3.114 For example, Victoria’s Cyber Strategy 2021–26 aims to create ‘a cyber safe place to work, live and learn’.^[182] The priorities under this strategy include:

• providing practical advice to Victorians about how to reduce cyber risks

• supporting police officers to prevent, detect, disrupt and prosecute cybercrime and other technology-facilitated crimes.^[183]

3.115 The Australian Government has established an Online Safety Charter which sets out expectations for the technology industry to protect Australians from harmful online experiences and to take meaningful action to address online harms to people using their products or services.^[184]

3.116 In the context of intimate image-based abuse crimes, eSafety has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Australian Federal Police. MOUs with state police are also being developed.^[185]

3.117 A recent report by the federal parliamentary committee on social media and online safety made recommendations including a review of the Online Safety Act^[186] and a review of the legislative framework and regulation in relation to the digital industry.^[187]

3.118 We also note that the new Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Act 2021 (Cth) has the potential to speed up requests for police to obtain Australians’ telecommunications data held offshore in the United States.

1. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A; Submissions 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party), 98 (Law Institute of Victoria).

   ↑

2. Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 6.

   ↑

3. Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) div 4A; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A.

   ↑

4. Cyberstalking may also be known as ‘online stalking’ or ‘Internet stalking’.

   ↑

5. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 12; Bradford W Reyns and Bonnie S Fisher, ‘The Relationship Between Offline and Online Stalking Victimization: A Gender-Specific Analysis’ (2018) 33(4) Violence and Victims 769, 781.

   ↑

6. Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 6.

   ↑

7. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 10.

   ↑

8. Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Final Report, March 2016) vol 1, 31; Delanie Woodlock, ‘The Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence and Stalking’ (2017) 23(5) Violence Against Women 584, 598.

   ↑

9. Billea Ahlgrim and Cheryl Terrance, ‘Perceptions of Cyberstalking: Impact of Perpetrator Gender and Cyberstalker/Victim Relationship’ (2021) 36(7–8) Journal of Interpersonal Violence NP4074, NP4077.

   ↑

10. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner is Australia’s independent regulator for online safety.

    ↑

11. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 44.

    ↑

12. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Safety by Design (Report, 2019) 7–8; Herman T Tavani and Frances S Grodzinsky, ‘Cyberstalking, Personal Privacy, and Moral Responsibility’ (2002) 4(2) Ethics and Information Technology 123.

    ↑

13. Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 1, 2; Laurence Miller, ‘Stalking: Patterns, Motives, and Intervention Strategies’ (2012) 17 Aggression and Violent Behavior 495, 501. See also Majeed Khader and Stephanie Chan, ‘Unwanted Attention: A Survey on Cyberstalking Victimization’ in Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan and Lorraine Sheridan (eds), Psycho-Criminological Approaches to Stalking Behavior: An International Perspective (John Wiley and Sons, 2020) 77, 79; ‘Cyberstalking’, ESafety Commissioner (Web Page) <https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/domestic-family-violence/technology-facilitated-abuse/cyberstalking>.

    ↑

14. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A.

    ↑

15. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking (Consultation Paper, June 2021) [8.2].

    ↑

16. This is a type of monitoring software designed to log computer keystrokes.

    ↑

17. For example, location sharing and tracking features that show a user’s live location can be used for stalking.

    ↑

18. For example, running a person’s photo through Google’s image search function to find where else the photo appears online, including other websites or platforms that contain personal information.

    ↑

19. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 10–11.

    ↑

20. Ibid.

    ↑

21. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

    ↑

22. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 26; Nicola Henry et al, ‘Technology-Facilitated Domestic Violence against Immigrant and Refugee Women: A Qualitative Study’ [2021] Journal of Interpersonal Violence 10.1177/08862605211001465:1–27, 5–6; Delanie Woodlock et al, Second National Survey on Technology Abuse in Australia (Report, 24 November 2020).

    ↑

23. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking (Consultation Paper, June 2021) 60. See also Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), ESafety for Women from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds (Summary Report, 18 February 2019)

    ↑

24. Consultations 4 (Sexual Assault Services Network), 10 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service), 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

    ↑

25. Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) div 4A.

    ↑

26. Department of Justice and Community Safety (Vic), ‘What Is Brodie’s Law’, Bullying—Brodie’s Law (Web Page, 13 August 2021) <https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/saynotobullying>; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A(2).

    ↑

27. Submission 65 (Code Black Threat Management); Erica R Fissel and Bradford W Reyns, ‘The Aftermath of Cyberstalking: School, Work, Social, and Health Costs of Victimization’ (2020) 45(1) American Journal of Criminal Justice 70, 71; Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 2.

    ↑

28. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 39. See also Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 7.

    ↑

29. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 11; Chanelle Wilson, Lorraine Sheridan and David Garratt-Reed, ‘What Is Cyberstalking? A Review of Measurements’ (2022) 37(11–12) Journal of Interpersonal Violence NP9763, NP9764.

    ↑

30. Submission 104 (Alannah and Madeline Foundation).

    ↑

31. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), ESafety for Women from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds (Summary Report, 18 February 2019).

    ↑

32. See, eg, Hadeel Al-Alosi, ‘Cyber-Violence: Digital Abuse in the Context of Domestic Violence’ (2017) 40(4) UNSW Law Journal 1573; Nicola Henry et al, ‘Technology-Facilitated Domestic Violence against Immigrant and Refugee Women: A Qualitative Study’ [2021] Journal of Interpersonal Violence 10.1177/08862605211001465:1–27; Delanie Woodlock, ‘The Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence and Stalking’ (2017) 23(5) Violence Against Women 584; Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Final Report, March 2016) vol 1, ch 2.

    ↑

33. Cristina Cavezza and Troy E McEwan, ‘Cyberstalking versus Off-Line Stalking in a Forensic Sample’ (2014) 20(10) Psychology, Crime and Law 955, 956; Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15; Catherine D Marcum and George E Higgins, ‘A Systematic Review of Cyberstalking Victimization and Offending Behaviors’ (2021) 46(6) American Journal of Criminal Justice 882; Chanelle Wilson, Lorraine Sheridan and David Garratt-Reed, ‘What Is Cyberstalking? A Review of Measurements’ (2022) 37(11–12) Journal of Interpersonal Violence NP9763, NP9778–9.

    ↑

34. Billea Ahlgrim and Cheryl Terrance, ‘Perceptions of Cyberstalking: Impact of Perpetrator Gender and Cyberstalker/Victim Relationship’ (2021) 36(7–8) Journal of Interpersonal Violence NP4074, NP4077; Cristina Cavezza and Troy E McEwan, ‘Cyberstalking versus Off-Line Stalking in a Forensic Sample’ (2014) 20(10) Psychology, Crime and Law 955, 956; Chanelle Wilson, Lorraine Sheridan and David Garratt-Reed, ‘What Is Cyberstalking? A Review of Measurements’ (2022) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(11–12) NP9763, NP9778–9.

    ↑

35. Majeed Khader and Stephanie Chan, ‘Unwanted Attention: A Survey on Cyberstalking Victimization’ in Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan and Lorraine Sheridan (eds), Psycho-Criminological Approaches to Stalking Behavior: An International Perspective (John Wiley and Sons, 2020) 77, 79–80; Harald Dressing et al, ‘Cyberstalking in a Large Sample of Social Network Users: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Impact upon Victims’ (2014) 17(2) Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 61, 61. Studies may not distinguish between family violence and non-family violence stalking.

    ↑

36. Cristina Cavezza and Troy E McEwan, ‘Cyberstalking versus Off-Line Stalking in a Forensic Sample’ (2014) 20(10) Psychology, Crime and Law 955, 956.

    ↑

37. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Adults’ Negative Online Experiences (Report, 2020) 4.

    ↑

38. This includes non-family violence stalking: see Plan International, Free to Be Online (Report, 2020) 7 <https://www.plan.org.au/publications/free-to-be-online/>.

    ↑

39. For example, keeping track of the victim survivor’s movements and interactions; maintaining unwanted contact or hacking the victim survivor’s personal accounts: Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 21.

    ↑

40. Majeed Khader and Stephanie Chan, ‘Unwanted Attention: A Survey on Cyberstalking Victimization’ in Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan and Lorraine Sheridan (eds), Psycho-Criminological Approaches to Stalking Behavior: An International Perspective (John Wiley and Sons, 2020) 77, 79–80.

    ↑

41. Billea Ahlgrim and Cheryl Terrance, ‘Perceptions of Cyberstalking: Impact of Perpetrator Gender and Cyberstalker/Victim Relationship’ (2021) 36(7–8) Journal of Interpersonal Violence NP4074; Harald Dressing et al, ‘Cyberstalking in a Large Sample of Social Network Users: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Impact upon Victims’ (2014) 17(2) Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 61; Suzie Dunn, ‘Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence: An Overview’ (Centre for International Governance Innovation: Supporting a Safer Internet Paper No 1, Social Science Research Network, 2020) <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3772042>; House of Representatives Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Social Media and Online Safety (Report, March 2022) 36; Anastasia Powell, Adrian J Scott and Nicola Henry, ‘Digital Harassment and Abuse: Experiences of Sexuality and Gender Minority Adults’ (2020) 17(2) European Journal of Criminology 199, 204.

    ↑

42. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), ‘Domestic and Family Violence’, ESafety Commissioner (Web Page) <https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/domestic-family-violence>.

    ↑

43. Dubravka Šimonović, Special Rapporteur, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Its Causes and Consequences on Online Violence Against Women and Girls from a Human Rights Perspective, Human Rights Council, UN Doc A/HRC/38/47 (14 June 2018) 5 [14].

    ↑

44. Billea Ahlgrim and Cheryl Terrance, ‘Perceptions of Cyberstalking: Impact of Perpetrator Gender and Cyberstalker/Victim Relationship’ (2021) 36(7–8) Journal of Interpersonal Violence NP4074; Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 19, 38.

    ↑

45. Suzie Dunn, ‘Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence: An Overview’ (Centre for International Governance Innovation: Supporting a Safer Internet Paper No 1, Social Science Research Network, 2020) 14 <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3772042>; Anastasia Powell, Adrian J Scott and Nicola Henry, ‘Digital Harassment and Abuse: Experiences of Sexuality and Gender Minority Adults’ (2020) 17(2) European Journal of Criminology 199, 204.

    ↑

46. Consultation 28 (Victorian Pride Lobby).

    ↑

47. Ibid, citing W Spencer Scott, ‘Electronic Boundary Violations Among Gay and Bisexual Men’ (Doctoral Project, Roosevelt University, 2016).

    ↑

48. Consultation 28 (Victorian Pride Lobby), citing W Spencer Scott, ‘Electronic Boundary Violations Among Gay and Bisexual Men’ (Doctoral Project, Roosevelt University, 2016).

    ↑

49. Anastasia Powell, Adrian J Scott and Nicola Henry, ‘Digital Harassment and Abuse: Experiences of Sexuality and Gender Minority Adults’ (2020) 17(2) European Journal of Criminology 199.

    ↑

50. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Technology-Facilitated Abuse among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women (Report, 2021); Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Online Safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women Living in Urban Areas (Report, October 2019).

    ↑

51. Nicola Henry et al, ‘Technology-Facilitated Domestic Violence against Immigrant and Refugee Women: A Qualitative Study’ [2021] Journal of Interpersonal Violence 10.1177/08862605211001465:1–27, 17–18.

    ↑

52. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Technology-Facilitated Abuse of Women with Intellectual or Cognitive Disability (Report, 2021) 4.

    ↑

53. Consultation 28 (Victorian Pride Lobby).

    ↑

54. Laura Fazio, ‘Young People and Cyberspace: Introduction’ (2016) 22(2) European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 211, 211.

    ↑

55. Consultations 4 (Sexual Assault Services Network), 20 (Law Institute of Victoria), 27 (Kulturbrille); Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 10–11; Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 8–10; Catherine D Marcum and George E Higgins, ‘A Systematic Review of Cyberstalking Victimization and Offending Behaviors’ (2021) 46(6) American Journal of Criminal Justice 882, 905–6; Chanelle Wilson, Lorraine Sheridan and David Garratt-Reed, ‘What Is Cyberstalking? A Review of Measurements’ (2022) 37(11–12) Journal of Interpersonal Violence NP9763, NP9764.

    ↑

56. Laura Fazio, ‘Young People and Cyberspace: Introduction’ (2016) 22(2) European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 211, 211.

    ↑

57. Ibid 212.

    ↑

58. Ibid 211.

    ↑

59. Submission 104 (Alannah and Madeline Foundation).

    ↑

60. House of Representatives Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Social Media and Online Safety (Report, March 2022) 28.

    ↑

61. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Digital Lives of Aussie Teens (Report, February 2021) 5.

    ↑

62. Submissions 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party), 104 (Alannah and Madeline Foundation); Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

    ↑

63. Submission 104 (Alannah and Madeline Foundation).

    ↑

64. Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) pt 2.

    ↑

65. Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) div 4A.

    ↑

66. Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 474.17, 474.17A(1)–(3), 474.15(1)–(2).

    ↑

67. See, eg, Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 105.

    ↑

68. Adult cyber abuse material is ‘the most severely abusive material’ intended to cause serious harm and be menacing, harassing or offensive. This includes material that is realistically threatening and unrelenting, including in situations of cyberstalking: Consultation 8 (eSafety Commissioner); Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme (Regulatory Guidance No eSC RG 3, December 2021) 3.

    ↑

69. Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) pt 7.

    ↑

70. Cyberbullying material is ‘online communication to or about an Australian child that is seriously threatening, seriously intimidating, seriously harassing or seriously humiliating’: Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Cyberbullying Scheme (Regulatory Guidance No eSC RG 1, November 2021) 3.

    ↑

71. Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) pt 5.

    ↑

72. Ibid pt 6. Image-based abuse means sharing online, or threatening to share, an intimate image without the consent of the person shown: Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), Image-Based Abuse Scheme (Regulatory Guidance No eSC RG 2, November 2021) 4 <https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/regulatory-schemes#cyberbullying-scheme>.

    ↑

73. Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) pt 13–14.

    ↑

74. Submissions 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party), 98 (Law Institute of Victoria).

    ↑

75. Michelle Sibenik, ‘A Critical Analysis of the Applications of Anti-Stalking Legislation in Victoria, Australia’ (PhD Thesis, Monash University, 2018) 131, 157–8.

    ↑

76. Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) s 4.

    ↑

77. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), ‘What You Can Report to ESafety’, ESafety Commissioner (Web Page) <https://www.esafety.gov.au/report/what-you-can-report-to-esafety>.

    ↑

78. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), ‘Online Safety Planning’, ESafety Commissioner (Web Page) <https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/domestic-family-violence/onlineSafety-planning>.

    ↑

79. Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 7 (citations omitted).

    ↑

80. Submissions 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party), 115 (Victoria Police); Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

    ↑

81. Wei-Jung Chang, ‘Cyberstalking and Law Enforcement’ (2020) 176 Procedia Computer Science 1188, 1192.

    ↑

82. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

    ↑

83. Submission 115 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

84. Ibid. Victoria Police pointed to its earlier submission to our sexual offences inquiry, in which it discussed jurisdictional issues that can arise where online providers are based overseas, and stated: ‘Victoria Police would welcome consideration of a place-of-consumption approach, whereby statutory obligations are automatically imposed on all providers which choose to make their platforms available to Victorian consumers … With this, requirements for providers to verify the identity of individuals creating profiles on these platforms, and to retain this information, would be both necessary and appropriate’.

    ↑

85. Submission 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party).

    ↑

86. Submission 104 (Alannah and Madeline Foundation).

    ↑

87. Participants in a roundtable discussion stated that there may be critical work required around the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic) that can strengthen these safety reforms: Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

    ↑

88. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 5.

    ↑

89. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking (Consultation Paper, June 2021) Question 28.

    ↑

90. Submissions 41 (Djirra), 98 (Law Institute of Victoria).

    ↑

91. Consultation 12 (Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria).

    ↑

92. Submission 41 (Djirra).

    ↑

93. Consultation 29 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation)..

    ↑

94. Ibid; Consultation 28 (Victorian Pride Lobby).

    ↑

95. Submission 104 (Alannah and Madeline Foundation); Consultation 10 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

    ↑

96. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable); Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 13–14.

    ↑

97. Submission 98 (Law Institute of Victoria).

    ↑

98. Consultations 8 (eSafety Commissioner), 10 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service), 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable), 28 (Victorian Pride Lobby).

    ↑

99. Submissions 41 (Djirra), 98 (Law Institute of Victoria), 104 (Alannah and Madeline Foundation); Consultation 10 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

    ↑

100. Submission 36 (Ahmad Masri).

     ↑

101. Wei-Jung Chang, ‘Cyberstalking and Law Enforcement’ (2020) 176 Procedia Computer Science 1188, 1192. See also Cassandra Cross and Thomas Holt, Responding to Cybercrime: Results of a Comparison between Community Members and Police Personnel (Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 635, Australian Institute of Criminology, 19 August 2021) 15 <https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi635>.

     ↑

102. Consultation 8 (eSafety Commissioner).

     ↑

103. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, August 2021).

     ↑

104. Consultation 29 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation).

     ↑

105. ‘Cyberstalking’, ESafety Commissioner (Web Page) <https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/domestic-family-violence/technology-facilitated-abuse/cyberstalking>.

     ↑

106. Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), ‘Classroom Resources’, ESafety Commissioner (Web Page) <https://www.esafety.gov.au/educators/classroom-resources>.

     ↑

107. Natalie Hendry, Jenny Walsh and Sharyn Leahy Hatton, The YeS Project (Workshop Handbook, Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Cth), 2018) 46.

     ↑

108. Consultation 29 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation). See also Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 7.

     ↑

109. Submission 104 (Alannah and Madeline Foundation).

     ↑

110. Alannah & Madeline Foundation, ‘Cyber and Digital Literacy Resources’, ESmart (Web Page, 2022) <https://www.esmart.org.au/esmart-libraries/cyber-and-digital-literacy-resources/>.

     ↑

111. Alannah & Madeline Foundation, ‘eSmart Digital Licence+’, ESmart (Web Page, 2022) <https://digitallicenceplus.org/>.

     ↑

112. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

113. ‘The Safety Net Project’, National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) (Web Page) <https://nnedv.org/content/technology-safety/>. See also Women’s Services Network (WESNET), ‘WESNET Safety Net Australia Service’, Technology Safety Australia (Web Page) <https://techsafety.org.au/about/>, established in 2011 and working closely with the US Safety Net Project.

     ↑

114. ‘Technology Safety’, National Network to End Domestic Violence (Web Page) <https://www.techsafety.org>.

     ↑

115. ‘Tech Safety App’, Tech Safety (Web Page) <https://www.techsafetyapp.org/home>.

     ↑

116. ‘Technology Safety & Privacy: A Toolkit for Survivors’, National Network to End Domestic Violence (Web Page) <https://www.techsafety.org/resources-survivors>.

     ↑

117. Consultation 12 (Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria).

     ↑

118. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

119. Ibid.

     ↑

120. Women’s Services Network (WESNET), ‘About Safe Connections’, Safe Connections 2.0 (Web Page) <https://phones.wesnet.org.au/safeconnections/>.

     ↑

121. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

122. Ibid.

     ↑

123. IDCARE, Individual Support Services (Web Page, 2022) <https://www.idcare.org/support-services/individual-support-services>.

     ↑

124. Delanie Woodlock et al, Second National Survey on Technology Abuse in Australia (Report, 24 November 2020).

     ↑

125. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

126. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, August 2021).

     ↑

127. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

128. These services detect and remove surveillance devices or software, such as spyware, tracking devices or vulnerabilities to hacking.

     ↑

129. Submission 115 (Victoria Police—supplementary response).

     ↑

130. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner); Consultations 12 (Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria), 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

131. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

132. Ibid.

     ↑

133. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner).

     ↑

134. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

135. Ibid.

     ↑

136. Consultations 12 (Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria), 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

137. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

138. Consultation 8 (eSafety Commissioner).

     ↑

139. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

140. Consultation 12 (Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria).

     ↑

141. Submission 115 (Victoria Police—supplementary response).

     ↑

142. Joanne D Worsley et al, ‘Victims’ Voices: Understanding the Emotional Impact of Cyberstalking and Individuals’ Coping Responses’ (2017) 7(2) SAGE Open 10.1177/215824401771029:1–13, 10.

     ↑

143. Wei-Jung Chang, ‘Cyberstalking and Law Enforcement’ (2020) 176 Procedia Computer Science 1188; Joanne D Worsley et al, ‘Victims’ Voices: Understanding the Emotional Impact of Cyberstalking and Individuals’ Coping Responses’ (2017) 7(2) SAGE Open 10.1177/215824401771029:1–13, 10.

     ↑

144. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, August 2021).

     ↑

145. Ibid.

     ↑

146. Ibid.

     ↑

147. Submission 60 (Dianne Russell).

     ↑

148. Submission 70 (Di McDonald).

     ↑

149. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, August 2021).

     ↑

150. Submission 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science). See also Holly Taylor-Dunn, Erica Bowen and Elizabeth A Gilchrist, ‘Reporting Harassment and Stalking to the Police: A Qualitative Study of Victims’ Experiences’ (2021) 36(11–12) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 10.1177/0886260518811423:1–29, 8.

     ↑

151. Wei-Jung Chang, ‘Cyberstalking and Law Enforcement’ (2020) 176 Procedia Computer Science 1188, 1191 (citations omitted); Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 40.

     ↑

152. Submissions 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science), 39 (Victorian Pride Lobby), 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party), 65 (Code Black Threat Management); Consultation 29 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation).

     ↑

153. Consultation 29 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation).

     ↑

154. Submission 39 (Victorian Pride Lobby).

     ↑

155. Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021), citing Delanie Woodlock et al, Second National Survey on Technology Abuse in Australia (Report, 24 November 2020).

     ↑

156. Consultation 10 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

     ↑

157. Submissions 55 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 65 (Code Black Threat Management), 97 (Federation of Community Legal Centres); Consultations 10 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service), 13 (Victoria Legal Aid), 20 (Law Institute of Victoria); Luke Bartlett and Annabel Chan, ‘Hashtag You’re It: Limitations of Psycho‐Legal Responses to Online Interpersonal Harm’ in Heng Choon Chan and Lorraine Sheridan (eds), Psycho-Criminological Approaches to Stalking Behavior: An International Perspective (John Wiley and Sons, 2020) 287, 298–9.

     ↑

158. Submissions 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science), 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party), 97 (Federation of Community Legal Centres), 115 (Victoria Police); Consultations 13 (Victoria Legal Aid), 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable); Asher Flynn, Anastasia Powell and Sophie Hindes, Technology-Facilitated Abuse: A Survey of Support Services Stakeholders (Research Report No 2, ANROWS, July 2021) 40; Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking (Consultation Paper, June 2021). See also Puneet Kaur et al, ‘A Systematic Literature Review on Cyberstalking. An Analysis of Past Achievements and Future Promises’ (2021) 163 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 120426:1–15, 7.

     ↑

159. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A(6).

     ↑

160. Submissions 55 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 97 (Federation of Community Legal Centres); Consultations 10 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service), 13 (Victoria Legal Aid), 20 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

161. Consultations 12 (Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria), 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

162. Consultation 8 (eSafety Commissioner).

     ↑

163. Consultation 23 (Cyberstalking roundtable).

     ↑

164. Submissions 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party), 97 (Federation of Community Legal Centres).

     ↑

165. Submission 98 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

166. Consultation 29 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation).

     ↑

167. See, eg, Submission 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science).

     ↑

168. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, August 2021).

     ↑

169. Submission 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science).

     ↑

170. Submissions 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner), 76 (Australian Association of Social Workers), 97 (Federation of Community Legal Centres).

     ↑

171. Submission 97 (Federation of Community Legal Centres).

     ↑

172. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking (Interim Report No 44, December 2021). The Whole Story approach is a way to improve the identification of stalking behaviour and enhance the ability of police to respond appropriately. It provides a more complete picture of any identifiable course of conduct, allowing more informed decisions to be made about interventions.

     ↑

173. Submission 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science); Chris Todd, Joanne Bryce and Virginia NL Franqueira, ‘Technology, Cyberstalking and Domestic Homicide: Informing Prevention and Response Strategies’ (2021) 31(1) Policing and Society 82, 92.

     ↑

174. Wei-Jung Chang, ‘Cyberstalking and Law Enforcement’ (2020) 176 Procedia Computer Science 1188, 1192.

     ↑

175. For the elements of the stalking offence with the most obvious connection to online behaviour (and therefore cyberstalking):
     
     see Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A(2)(b), (ba), (bb), (bc), (f).

     ↑

176. Wei-Jung Chang, ‘Cyberstalking and Law Enforcement’ (2020) 176 Procedia Computer Science 1188, 1192.

     ↑

177. Submission 115 (Victoria Police—supplementary response).

     ↑

178. John Silvester, ‘Cyber-Crime: How Police Are Rebooting Methods for a New Era’, The Age (online, 15 October 2021) <https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/cyber-cops-the-new-frontier-20211014-p58zuv.html>.

     ↑

179. Submission 115 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

180. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences (Report No 42, September 2021) [14.114] Recommendations 52–55.

     ↑

181. Consultation 29 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation); Delanie Woodlock et al, Second National Survey on Technology Abuse in Australia (Report, 24 November 2020) 7–8.

     ↑

182. Department of Premier and Cabinet (Vic), Victoria’s Cyber Strategy 2021 (Strategy, 2021) 8.

     ↑

183. Ibid 11.

     ↑

184. Commonwealth of Australia, Online Safety Charter (Charter, 2019).

     ↑

185. Consultation 8 (eSafety Commissioner).

     ↑

186. House of Representatives Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Social Media and Online Safety (Report, March 2022) [1.23] Recommendation 1.

     ↑

187. Ibid Recommendation 18.

     ↑