Dark side of young people's phone habit revealed
Online following and monitoring has become common among family and friends but research published by the eSafety Commissioner on Thursday suggests this behaviour might be spilling over into romantic relationships.
Ashton Wood, chief executive of DV Safe Phone, said the trend was concerning and could have harmful consequences.
Mr Wood leads the organisation that provides free mobile phones to domestic violence victims across Australia.
"In domestic violence, we see lots around technology-facilitated abuse," he told AAP.
"It becomes a method of control and before the victim realises it, their partner is watching everything."
Mr Wood said it was important to have a safe phone - one that was not tracked or monitored.
"It's really critical if someone's in danger to have access to a device that their partner doesn't know about, that can be used without fear of being tracked or monitored," he said.
The eSafety Commissioner's research found 18.6 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 expected to track their partner whenever they wanted.
The study surveyed 2000 Australians aged 18 to 75, asking whether they agreed with certain harmful expectations and attitudes linked to tech-based coercive control in intimate relationships.
Tracking a partner can take many forms, including using Apple's Find My app or third-party apps such as Life360, which is popular among parents.
Maneesha Prakash from the Youth Advocacy Centre works with young people and delivers community legal education programs in schools.
The domestic and family violence lawyer said it had become widely normalised for people to track friends, partners and loved ones through social media.
"Most apps have the ability to share locations," Ms Prakash told AAP.
"(Young) people don't blink twice. They think it's normal. They think it's part of somebody caring about them.
"That leads to them getting into quite toxic relationships and all the flow-on effects."
The prospect of tracking a partner can be a form of tech-based coercive control, which is a pattern of abusive behaviour used to control someone within a relationship.
"A lot of young people find it really confronting when you talk to them about coercive control and how it's not normal behaviour to be constantly monitored," Ms Prakash said.
"We are seeing quite a lot of DV behaviours stemming from coercive control that comes with locating someone."
Ms Prakash said there were significant gaps in knowledge that left young people at a disadvantage.
"It's important to keep having conversations around consent and coercive control in schools and at home.," she said.
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
Lifeline 13 11 14
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
2 hours ago
- 9 News
Two men charged after 'tragic' kidnapping and murder of man in Brisbane
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Two men have been charged with the "tragic" kidnapping and murder of a 52-year-old man in Brisbane . The pair, 26 and 29, were arrested in Upper Mount Gravatt and Chermside. The victim went to Logan Hospital with head injuries about 12.30am on January 6, and died the next day. Two men have been charged with kidnapping and murdering a 52-year-old man in Brisbane. (Supplied) Police released images showing the alleged confrontation in Inala. It shows a man pointing a gun at another man getting out of a car with his hands up near Rudyard Street. The arrested pair have been charged with murder, kidnapping, torture and grievous bodily harm and are expected to appear in Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow. Three men have previously been charged over the alleged attack and police say they're not looking for anyone else. Detective Inspector Chris Knight said the investigation has been "long-running and complex". "We will allege this group was known to each other, and their actions resulted in the tragic death of a man who sustained catastrophic injuries," he said. They are appealing for help from anyone who knows more. Brisbane police crime murder Australia national queensland CONTACT US Auto news: Why Australians are still driving around without insurance.
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Is Australia becoming a more violent country?
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Sky News AU
12 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Pro-Palestine protestors have never acknowledged October 7 attacks and will not get ‘sympathy'
Sky News host Rita Panahi discusses the 'useful idiots' who are protesting on Sydney's Harbor Bridge today and 'not acknowledging' the atrocities which occurred on October 7. 'If you just have some banners, disavowing Hamas, a terrorist group, saying something about the victims across the board, I think a lot more Australians would be sympathetic,' Ms Panahi said. Ms Panahi also discussed footage Hamas released of an Israeli hostage who is being 'tortured slowly'.
