Electronic Footprints in the Sand: Technologies for Assisting Domestic Violence Survivors

  • Martin Emms
  • Budi Arief
  • Aad van Moorsel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8319)


With the rapid growth and spread of Internet-based social support systems, the impact that these systems can make to society – be it good or bad – has become more significant and can make a real difference to people’s lives. As such, various aspects of these systems need to be carefully investigated and analysed, including their security/privacy issues. In this paper, we present our work in designing and implementing various technological features that can be used to assist domestic violence survivors in obtaining help without leaving traces which might lead to further violence from their abuser. This case study serves as the core of our paper, in which we outline our approach, various design considerations – including difficulties in keeping browsing history private, our currently implemented solutions (single use URL, targeted history sanititation agent, and secret graphical gateway), as well as novel ideas for future work (including location-based service advertising and deployment in the wild).


Privacy confidentiality practical security browsing history social inclusion survivors domestic violence intimate partner cyber stalking support groups system implementation work in progress 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aggrawal, G., Bursztein, E., Jackson, C., Boneh, D.: An analysis of private browsing modes in modern browsers. In: Proceedings 19th USENIX Security Symposium (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krishnamurthy, B., Malandrino, D., Wills, C.E.: Measuring privacy loss and the impact of privacy protection in web browsing. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2007), pp. 52–63. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M., Rose, K.: Stalking victimization in the US. US Department of Justice National Crime Victimisation Survey (January 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besnard, D., Arief, B.: Computer security impaired by legitimate users. Computers & Security 23(3), 253–264 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunphy, P., Yan, J.: Do background images improve “draw a secret” graphical passwords? In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2007), pp. 36–47. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Logan, T., Walker, R.: Partner stalking: Psychological dominance or business as usual? Trauma Violence Abuse 10(3), 247–270 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maple, C., Short, E., Brown, A.: Cyberstalking in the United Kingdom: An Analysis of the ECHO Pilot Survey. University of Bedfordshire National Centre for Cyberstalking Research (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mayer, J.R., Mitchell, J.C.: Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 413–427 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitnick, K., Simon, W.: The art of deception: Controlling the human element of security. Wiley (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perry, J.: Digital stalking: A guide to technology risks for victims. Published jointly by Network for Surviving Stalking and Women’s Aid Federation of England (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richards, L.: Findings from the Multi-agency Domestic Violence Murder Reviews in London. Prepared for the ACPO Homicide Working Group, Metropolitan Police (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sasse, M.A., Brostoff, S., Weirich, D.: Transforming the weakest link - a human computer interaction approach to usable effective security. BT Tech. Journal 19, 122–131 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Southworth, C., Dawson, S., Fraser, C., Tucker, S.: A high-tech twist on abuse: Technology, intimate partner stalking and advocacy. Violence Against Women Online Resources (June 2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Southworth, C., Finn, J., Dawson, S., Fraser, C., Tucker, S.: Intimate Partner Violence, Technology, and Stalking. Violence Against Women 13(8), 842–856 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spence-Diehl, E.: Stalking and technology: The double edge sword. Technology in Human Services 22(1), 5–18 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N.: Stalking in America: Findings form the national violence against women survey. US Dept. of Justice (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Moorsel, A., Emms, M., Rendall, G., Arief, B.: Digital Strategy for the Social Inclusion of Survivors of Domestic Violence. Technical Report CS-TR-1277, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University (September 2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    BBC News Online: Details of 100m Facebook users collected and published, (last accessed: November 27, 2012)
  19. 19.
    BBC News Online: Facebook’s battle with privacy and profit, (last accessed: November 27, 2012)
  20. 20.
    Digital Trends: Why Do Not Track may not protect anybody’s privacy, (last accessed: November 27, 2012)
  21. 21.
    Google Chrome: Using the Incognito mode, (last accessed: November 27, 2012)
  22. 22.
    Panopticlick: How Unique – and Trackable – Is Your Browser?, (last accessed: November 27, 2012)
  23. 23.
    Tails: The Amnesic Incognito Life System, (last accessed: November 27, 2012)
  24. 24.
    Tor Project: Anonymity Online, (last accessed: November 27, 2012)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Emms
    • 1
  • Budi Arief
    • 1
  • Aad van Moorsel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations