4 ms·

> If you need to install stalkerware on your partner’s device, just start the divorce process already. This assumes good faith, and often that doesn’t reflect

> If you need to install stalkerware on your partner’s device, just start the divorce process already. This assumes good faith, and often that doesn’t reflect reality. I’ve helped a disturbing number of friends clean up their devices and accounts to free them from abusive partners whom they are already divorcing. Often these stalkerware apps are just one component of a web/pattern of behaviors which include every kind of stalking, property vandalism, and violence that you’d imagine. Sometimes any phone record of them contacting me leads stalkers/harassers to start targeting me as well - these people often don’t limit the scope of their abuse. People founding and working for stalkerware companies and other gray hat / blackhat enterprises seem to be willing to turn a blind eye to the widespread harm that their products and work facilitate - they are only focused on the income it generates. It’s a major reason I include pointed ethical questions about candidates work in our hiring pipeline; we work with sensitive data and there’s no room for people who don’t genuinely care about those who suffer the consequences.

rekabis 2y ago
> This assumes good faith, and often that doesn’t reflect reality. I’ve helped a disturbing number of friends clean up their devices and accounts to free them from abusive partners whom they are already divorcing. You completely misread my statement. I wasn’t talking to the victims, I was talking to the perps. If you, as a suspicious person, is thinking about USING stalkerware, you have already lost the moral and ethical position and should bow out of the relationship. Failure to do so makes you a colossal arsehole and an abject failure of a person where healthy relationships are concerned. About the only legitimate use case I could possibly think of is if the VICTIM of abuse used the software against their abuser to accumulate evidence of non-physical (texting, phoning, online stalking, etc.) abuse. And even this is thin ground, as IIRC most courts would not accept that data as evidence as it constitutes a crime in many jurisdictions.
- reaperman 2y ago
  I read it correctly - I just wanted to allude to the fact that your advice to them was super incongruent with their psychology. These people are compelled to control their family members. You’re right that they should bow out of any relationships, but it’s like trying to tell a bear not to eat meat. They don’t need to do it to survive, but their compulsion to do so cannot be overridden.
  - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
    It’s quite right to frame it as a matter of psychology and controlling impulse. That’s exactly what it is. In one respect this isn’t something that can be reasoned with. Not that change is necessarily impossible for all, but in these situations change isn’t likely, and relapsing to controlling behavior is common, as is escalation. People on the other side of this abuse are best served by plotting a thoughtful (and assisted if possible) exit strategy for themselves and those that rely on them (children, pets, etc). Although where others are involved, taking legal advice is a very good idea. This can be much different from the insecure and spy-minded snooping significant other who occasionally looks through their SO’s texts surreptitiously. Although I have a problem with that too, installing surveillance is absolutely next level.
- lazide 2y ago
  It’s a bizarre statement, because anyone who is an abusive POS is definitely not going to care. Because they are an abusive POS. Any shits they give about moral high ground are purely performative, and were long before now - or they wouldn’t be an abusive POS. It’s like saying ‘if you’re considering the best way to rob a bank, you’re already a bad person and should just stop.’. Do you think anyone, ever, in the history of people like this would do that? Barring some random conversion to religion or whatever anyway. It isn’t even preaching to the choir! It’s like, I don’t know, preaching in a brothel? Or at a crime scene? But more hopeless? Also, evidence gathered by a private party in commission of a crime is almost always acceptable as evidence everywhere, albeit with the caveat that the person responsible may well be prosecuted for that crime. The evidence would just be used in both court cases. The police (in some jurisdictions like the US) are the only ones typically restricted this way. Example - burglar breaks into house, finds dead bodies. Tips the cops off. They aren’t going to just throw up their hands and say ‘nothing we can do about it!’ because the guy didn’t have a key. And if the burglar saw someone run out, they’ll use the burglar to help identify the suspect too. Albeit with the caveat they’ll of course investigate the burglar too, probably arrest him, and he’s definitely going to be raked over the coals by the defense. Since nothing says ‘impeachable witness’ like a known felon.

rekabis 2y ago

> This assumes good faith, and often that doesn’t reflect reality. I’ve helped a disturbing number of friends clean up their devices and accounts to free them from abusive partners whom they are already divorcing. You completely misread my statement. I wasn’t talking to the victims, I was talking to the perps. If you, as a suspicious person, is thinking about USING stalkerware, you have already lost the moral and ethical position and should bow out of the relationship. Failure to do so makes you a colossal arsehole and an abject failure of a person where healthy relationships are concerned. About the only legitimate use case I could possibly think of is if the VICTIM of abuse used the software against their abuser to accumulate evidence of non-physical (texting, phoning, online stalking, etc.) abuse. And even this is thin ground, as IIRC most courts would not accept that data as evidence as it constitutes a crime in many jurisdictions.

reaperman 2y ago
I read it correctly - I just wanted to allude to the fact that your advice to them was super incongruent with their psychology. These people are compelled to control their family members. You’re right that they should bow out of any relationships, but it’s like trying to tell a bear not to eat meat. They don’t need to do it to survive, but their compulsion to do so cannot be overridden.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
  It’s quite right to frame it as a matter of psychology and controlling impulse. That’s exactly what it is. In one respect this isn’t something that can be reasoned with. Not that change is necessarily impossible for all, but in these situations change isn’t likely, and relapsing to controlling behavior is common, as is escalation. People on the other side of this abuse are best served by plotting a thoughtful (and assisted if possible) exit strategy for themselves and those that rely on them (children, pets, etc). Although where others are involved, taking legal advice is a very good idea. This can be much different from the insecure and spy-minded snooping significant other who occasionally looks through their SO’s texts surreptitiously. Although I have a problem with that too, installing surveillance is absolutely next level.
lazide 2y ago
It’s a bizarre statement, because anyone who is an abusive POS is definitely not going to care. Because they are an abusive POS. Any shits they give about moral high ground are purely performative, and were long before now - or they wouldn’t be an abusive POS. It’s like saying ‘if you’re considering the best way to rob a bank, you’re already a bad person and should just stop.’. Do you think anyone, ever, in the history of people like this would do that? Barring some random conversion to religion or whatever anyway. It isn’t even preaching to the choir! It’s like, I don’t know, preaching in a brothel? Or at a crime scene? But more hopeless? Also, evidence gathered by a private party in commission of a crime is almost always acceptable as evidence everywhere, albeit with the caveat that the person responsible may well be prosecuted for that crime. The evidence would just be used in both court cases. The police (in some jurisdictions like the US) are the only ones typically restricted this way. Example - burglar breaks into house, finds dead bodies. Tips the cops off. They aren’t going to just throw up their hands and say ‘nothing we can do about it!’ because the guy didn’t have a key. And if the burglar saw someone run out, they’ll use the burglar to help identify the suspect too. Albeit with the caveat they’ll of course investigate the burglar too, probably arrest him, and he’s definitely going to be raked over the coals by the defense. Since nothing says ‘impeachable witness’ like a known felon.