Tracking apps might make us feel safe, but blurring the line between care and control can be dangerous
Who knows where you are right now? Your friends, your boss? Maybe your parents? How about your partner? According to recent research by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, 'nearly 1 in 5 young people believe it's OK to track their partner whenever they want'.
As a long-term and stubbornly-vocal privacy advocate, I find this alarming. It's hard to imagine a bigger red flag than someone wanting to keep tabs on my daily movements. It's not that I'm doing anything remotely secretive: my days are most often spent working from home, punctuated by trips to the bakery – scandalous! But it's not about whether I have anything to hide from my partner. Everyone ought to have the right to keep things to themselves, and choose when they do or don't share.
After reading this study I became troubled by a niggling feeling that perhaps I'm standing alone in the corner of the party while all my friends share their locations with one another. So I conducted a highly unscientific survey of people in my life. As it turns out, aside from a small handful who share my resistance, lots of people are indeed keeping digital tabs on one another.
Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads
Many constantly share their location with their partner, or use apps like Life360 or Find My Friends. Some groups of friends all do it together, and talk of it as a kind of digital closeness where physical distance and the busyness of life keeps them apart (I assure myself that I'm not invited to the tracking party for obvious reasons). Others use apps to keep familial watch over older relatives – especially when their health may be in decline. Obviously this is anecdotal, but it seems people are using all kinds of digital monitoring for all kinds of reasons, not all of them nefarious. Some research suggests the notion of 'careful surveillance' can form intimacy in ways that complicates typical ideas of privacy.
It's hard to ignore the gendered nature of all this. The eSafety Commissioner's research specifically highlights that men are significantly more likely to consider intimate partner monitoring as reasonable and a 'sign of care'. Conversely, women tell me they digitally track one another as a safety mechanism while walking home at night, travelling alone or out on dates – specifically as a response to the terrifying state of men's violence against women. Likewise, research shows how some women perceive their phone as a key tool to mitigate safety risk.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing notions is that acceptance of digital monitoring is often presented as a way to create – rather than undermine – a sense of trust. When government officials or tech industry bigwigs proclaim that you should be OK with being spied on if you're not doing anything wrong, they're asking (well, demanding) that we trust them. But it's not about trust, it's about control and disciplining behaviour. 'Nothing to hide; nothing to fear' is a frustratingly persistent fallacy, one in which we ought to be critical of when its underlying (lack of) logic creeps into how we think about interacting with one another.
When it comes to interpersonal surveillance, blurring the boundary between care and control can be dangerous. The eSafety Commissioner is right to raise concerns that many of these behaviours are characteristic of tech-based coercive control, and to call out that use of digital spying tools by parents on their children has 'anaesthetised young people to the whole idea of being monitored', teaching them that surveillance is a form of love. Just as normalising state and corporate surveillance can lead to further erosion of rights and freedoms over time, normalising interpersonal surveillance seems to be changing the landscape of what's considered to be an expression of love – and not necessarily for the better.
Many parents opt to use digital monitoring apps for fear for their children's safety. But this troubled association between surveillance and safety doesn't just come from protective parents: it's a long-held position of police, intelligence agencies and even politicians. It can be found in the repeated attempts to undermine end-to-end encryption, despite secure communications being essential to many people's online safety. It's in the moves to put facial recognition into CCTV cameras throughout Melbourne, despite it being well documented that such technologies demonstrate racial bias and exacerbate harms against people of colour. It's in assuring students that university wifi tracking and campus cameras are for safety, then weaponising it against them for protesting. We ought to be very critical of claims that equate surveillance with safety.
Sign up to Five Great Reads
Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning
after newsletter promotion
As is often the case with issues of privacy, the boundaries between what might be OK and what feels intrusive generally comes back to a few key principles. This includes meaningful consent (do you know when, how and why it's being used, and do you have the ability to say no without repercussions?) and purpose limitation (is it for specific situations? Or is it all the time and for any reason?). As always, questions of who holds power and agency are crucial.
Maybe these are markers of changing notions of love and care in a time of rampant surveillance, but, as always, we ought to be careful about what we usher in as the new normal. For me, I'll be holding on to a more offline kind of love.
Samantha Floreani is a digital rights activist and writer. They are the program lead at Digital Rights Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Users of Facebook app must make important change now to avoid private chats going PUBLIC
META AI, which has been woven into the Facebook and WhatsApp experience, might be making your private conversations with the chatbot public. The standalone Meta AI app prompts users to choose to post publicly in the app's Discovery feed by default, a recent report by TechRadar warned. 2 When users tap "Share" and "Post to feed," they are sharing their conversations with strangers all around the world. It is much like a public Facebook post, the report added. The Discovery feed is plastered with AI -generated images, as well as text conversations. There's no telling how private these interactions can be - from talking through your relationship woes to drafting a eulogy. "I've scrolled past people asking Meta AI to explain their anxiety dreams, draft eulogies, and brainstorm wedding proposals," the report wrote. "It's voyeuristic, and not in the performative way of most social media; it's real and personal." Meta has a new pop-up warning users that agreeing for their AI chats to land on the Discovery page means strangers can view them. These conversation snippets aren't just for themselves or their friends to see. However, accidental sharing remains a possibility. TechRadar noted that these conversations may even appear elsewhere on Meta platforms, like Facebook, WhatsApp or Instagram. Meta's top VR boss predicts AI-powered future with no phones, brain-controlled ovens and virtual TVs that only cost $1 Fortunately, you can opt out of having your conversations go public completely through the Meta AI app's settings. Here's how you can make sure your chats aren't at risk of being shared publicly: Open the Meta AI app. Tap your account icon, i.e. your profile picture or initials. Next, click on Data and Privacy and then tap Manage Your Information. Then toggle on Make all public prompts visible to only you, and then Apply to all in the pop-up. This will ensure that when you share a prompt, only you will be able to see it. To go one step further, you can erase all records of any interaction you've had with Meta AI. To do this, simply tap Delete all prompts in this same section of the Meta AI app's settings. This will wipe any prompt you've written, regardless of whether it's been posted, from the app. It's worth noting that even though you have opted out Of course, even with the opt-out enabled and your conversations with Meta AI no longer public, Meta still retains the right to use your chats to improve its models. What is Meta AI? You may have spotted Meta AI on your social media feed - here's how it works: Meta AI is a conversational artificial intelligence tool, also known as a chatbot. It responds to a user's questions in a similar fashion to competitors like ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot. Meta AI is what's known as generative AI, so called due to its ability to generate content. It can produced text or images in response to a user's request. The tool is trained on data that's available online. It can mimic patterns commonly found in human language as it provides responses. Meta AI appears on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, where it launches a chat when a question is sent.
Reuters
20 hours ago
- Reuters
Meta partners with sports eyewear brand Oakley to launch AI-powered glasses
June 20 (Reuters) - Meta (META.O), opens new tab said on Friday it has teamed up with Oakley to release AI-powered smart glasses, expanding its push into wearable tech after the success of Ray-Ban Meta glasses. The social media company is expanding its partnership with Oakley and Ray-Ban-parent EssilorLuxottica ( opens new tab amid growing consumer interest in AI-powered wearable devices. Meta has sold millions of Ray-Ban Meta glasses since their launch and said its "Oakley Meta HSTN" will feature a hands-free high-resolution camera, open-ear speakers, water resistance and Meta AI capabilities. The limited-edition product will be available for preorder starting July 11 at $499, with additional products starting at $399 launching later this summer. Meta said the product line would roll out in North America, Australia and several European countries, with plans to expand to Mexico, India and the United Arab Emirates by the year-end. The Oakley Meta HSTN will debut this month at several major sporting events including Fanatics Fest and UFC International Fight Week. Smaller rival Snap (SNAP.N), opens new tab said earlier this month it would launch its smart glasses, called Specs, for consumers next year. Companies such as Google are also exploring similar investments.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Five Networking Groups Every Small Business Owner Should Consider in 2025
When a Sydney tech founder's payment infrastructure imploded faster than a social media trend due to a high dispute rate, she didn't panic-search 'crisis management consultants' or spiral into a doom-scroll. She tapped her Entrepreneurs' Organisation Forum, and was introduced to the right person with the right authority at her faceless payment provider company faster than you could say 'online meeting.' Forty-eight hours later, her crisis was ancient history; a testament to EO's on-demand lifeline for founders. Welcome to the age of strategic solitude-busting, where 45% of entrepreneurs report stress levels that make Wall Street traders look zen, and isolation has become as common as AI-generated headshots. With business failures hitting record highs (November 2024 saw 1,442 Australian companies flatline, the worst month in recorded history), the question isn't whether entrepreneurs need peer support, but whether they can afford to network with anything less than the A-list. The Loneliness Epidemic Recent sentiment analyses of thousands of online forums reveal founders oscillating between existential dread and Navy SEAL–level coping strategies. Yet 70% of new business opportunities still emerge from networking, making isolation not just emotionally devastating but financially suicidal. The stats paint a picture grimmer than a Succession season finale. Half of CEOs feel lonelier than a crypto evangelist at a climate summit, while 82% of entrepreneurs deem mentorship as essential as wifi. The remedy? Five networking powerhouses that have turned peer support from transactional glad-handing into transformational strategy. 1. Entrepreneurs' Organisation: The Led Zeppelin of Business Networks With nearly 20,000 members across 220 chapters, including 17 across Asia Pacific, EO has achieved global relevance without sacrificing intimate authenticity. This year's Global Leadership Conference in Hawaii drew 1,600 entrepreneurs from 60 countries, featuring globally-recognised luminaries from Deepak Chopra to Marcus Lemonis, making Davos look quaint. EO's signature Forums unite 8–12 founders monthly under stricter confidentiality than a Supreme Court leak investigation. 'In EO, you learn to ask the tough questions and listen for your own answers,' explains EO's Asia Pacific Chair, sounding more like she's describing enlightenment than networking. Beyond peer counsel, EO's partnerships with Harvard, MIT, and Bond University offer executive education that costs less than YPO's dues while delivering Ivy League credentials. Its upcoming 'EO Fun Japan 2025' in Osaka will coincide with the World Expo, proving that even global learning can be Instagram-worthy. 2. Young Presidents' Organisation: An Exclusive Club with an Expiration Date YPO operates like a velvet-rope nightclub, where the bouncer checks your P&L instead of your ID. With CEOs and Executives who must be under 45 prior to joining and represent companies generating $15 million or more annually, it's the ultimate achievement badge for overachievers. YPO's EDGE conference in Barcelona attracted 2,200 leaders to dissect fractured geopolitics, essential for CEOs managing complex supply chains. But YPO's age gate sparks expiration-date anxiety that makes midlife crises look cheerful. Members face an awkward transition to 'Gold' status at 46, trimming benefits and sparking membership whiplash. Its annual dues surpass EO, and with the age limit firmly in place, membership is tantamount to leasing a mega-bucks super car with a 10,000-kilometre cap. 3. Club of United Business: Australia's Soho House for Startups When Daniel Hakim launched CUB at 23, he blended festival cool with Gold Coast glamour, complete with marble baristas and luxury locker rooms. Nine years later, his empire boasts 23,000 members across Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane, with clubhouse openings timed to major international events. 'It's not your father's golf club,' Hakim has said previously, offering concierge-level networking for $9,900 AUD a year. But without EO's global lattice or YPO's legacy planning, CUB can feel like a luxury boutique, irresistible within Australia but limited for founders eyeing international scale. 4. Business Network International: An Impressive Network BNI has engineered networking into a super clever algorithm. Its 330,000+ members across 11,200 chapters generated $25.2 billion in member-to-member referrals in 2024, under a 'one profession per chapter' rule stricter than Olympic doping tests. Weekly meetings run like accountability boot camps, best for service-based entrepreneurs craving instant ROI rather than transformational growth. At about $2,500 USD annually, BNI delivers transactional networking with measurable dividends, but its transactional zeal can leave growth-hungry founders wanting deeper counsel. 5. The Executive Centre: Workspace with Serendipity on Tap TEC offers premium coworking from $400 USD per month, spanning 150+ global locations from Singapore to London. Its harbour-view lounges and barista-grade coffee foster chance encounters that can spark partnerships, but without curated peer forums or confidentiality protocols, TEC remains a workspace theatre, not a true advisory network. Robert How, TEC's Australia Country Director, touts double-digit revenue growth and expansion across financial districts. The Verdict: EO Reigns Supreme in 2025 In a world awash with AI-powered match-making apps and virtual business conferences, EO's decidedly human approach feels both revolutionary and timeless. While competitors focus on demographics, amenities, or referral volume, EO tackles the root cause of entrepreneurial failure (isolation) through confidential Forums that forge psychological safety nets stronger than any algorithm. It's not-for-profit structure channels every dollar back into member value instead of shareholder dividends, fostering peer environments where founders share vulnerabilities without commercial agendas. From Serengeti sunrise treks to Harvard case studies, EO blends professional rigour with personal renewal with a holistic model that others struggle to replicate. As entrepreneurs navigate AI disruption, supply-chain shocks, and global volatility, choosing the right network isn't about prestige or perks; it's about survival. EO's blend of global reach, founder-for-founder empathy, and transformational learning creates the lifeline that turns isolation into connection, one Forum at a time. In 2025, settling for anything less than EO isn't just short-sighted. It's entrepreneurial malpractice.
