reporting-apps

Reporting Apps

Reporting apps are anti-violence tools whose primary purpose is not to summon help in the moment but to document and report incidents of Gender-Based Violence — building a record or evidence trail against a perpetrator, sometimes with AI chatbots for triage and education. They sit closer to the justice system than Personal Safety Apps, which makes their handling of data especially consequential: see Datafication of MeToo for a critique of how the data they generate becomes capital and entangles users with the Criminal Legal System.

In this vault

Backlinks

Linked Pages

privacy-and-safety

Privacy and Safety

Privacy and safety are often treated as the same goal in anti-violence technology, but for a Victim-Survivor they pull in opposite directions and must be balanced deliberately. The data that makes a safety tool useful — real-time Location Sharing, cloud backups, message logs kept as Evidence Documentation — is exactly the data an abuser will try to reach if they retain access to a device, account, or family plan. NNEDV’s Safety Net Project frames technology safety as protecting “safety, privacy, accessibility, and civil rights” together, and stresses that the burden should fall on holding perpetrators accountable, not solely on survivors restricting themselves. Yet practical safety planning still requires hard privacy choices: which device is trustworthy, which accounts are compromised, and what should never be stored where an abuser can find it.

This is why every safety app sits in tension here. A design that collects rich location history to “build evidence” also builds a honeypot that Stalkerware or a coercive partner can exploit, and the Datafication of MeToo critique shows how such collection can become extraction rather than protection. Privacy-protective alternatives respond with data minimisation, on-device storage, encryption, and Discreet Access, and safety guidance cautions that even removing monitoring can escalate danger if an abuser feels they’ve “lost control.” Getting this balance right is the central problem of Survivor-Centered Design and Trauma-Informed Design.

In this vault

tension_with::Personal Safety Apps
threatened_by::Stalkerware
related_to::Discreet Access
related_to::Survivor-Centered Design

Sources

evidence-documentation

Evidence Documentation

Evidence documentation is the practice of recording incidents of abuse — dates, times, locations, injuries, messages, photographs — in a form that can later support a protective order, a criminal case, or a survivor’s own sense of what happened. Advocates note that contemporaneous records carry weight precisely because memory and isolation are eroded by abuse. Purpose-built tools such as VictimsVoice illustrate the genre: a password-protected progressive web app (deliberately not an installable icon, so an abuser sees no “receipt” on the phone) that prompts for the structured details courts expect, and that markets compliance with HIPAA, VAWA, VOCA and FVPSA. Where evidence is meant for legal use, questions of authentication and chain of custody — proving a record is what it claims to be and was not altered — become central.

This documentation directly supports Reporting and Disclosure and is the feature most associated with Reporting Apps. But it sits in sharp tension with Privacy and Safety: a database of abuse evidence on a survivor’s device is exactly what makes it dangerous if discovered, which is why Discreet Access and disguised storage are recurring design responses to Tech-Enabled Abuse. The Datafication of MeToo critique adds a further caution — that “building evidence” is also building data capital, and that the narratives such tools render legible are shaped by the institutions, not only the survivors, they serve.

In this vault

implemented_by::Reporting Apps
supports::Reporting and Disclosure
tension_with::Privacy and Safety
examined_in::Datafication of MeToo

Sources

Tags: #concept #evidence #documentation

personal-safety-apps

Personal Safety Apps

Personal safety apps are mobile applications that help a user summon help, share their whereabouts, or deter harm. Most combine a Panic Button, Location Sharing, and a Trusted Network, and many connect to Crisis Hotlines and Resources. They span two broad postures: alarm-and-summon tools aimed at acute danger, and network-and-intervene tools rooted in Bystander Intervention that aim to prevent harm before it escalates.

The central design tension is Privacy and Safety: the same capabilities that protect (continuous location, contact lists, always-on microphones) can be turned against a user — see Location Tracking Abuse and Stalkerware — so survivor-facing tools must be weighed with Trauma-Informed Design in mind.

In this vault

addresses::Gender-Based Violence
related_to::Bystander Intervention
tension_with::Privacy and Safety

Member apps assert instance_of::[[Personal Safety Apps]]; see backlinks.

criminal-legal-system

Criminal Legal System

The criminal legal system — police, prosecution, courts, and incarceration — is the institutional channel toward which much anti-violence response is oriented, and a recurring point of tension in this vault. For Sexual Violence the funnel is steep: RAINN estimates that of every 1,000 assaults, only about 310 are reported to police and roughly 25 perpetrators are incarcerated, meaning the vast majority are never held accountable through criminal channels. Critics of “carceral feminism” — Aya Gruber, Mimi Kim, and others — argue that relying on policing, mandatory-arrest laws, and no-drop prosecution to protect women has unevenly harmed poor communities and communities of colour, increasing arrests of Black men and exposing survivors themselves to criminalisation. This is why the system cannot be treated as a neutral endpoint for safety technology.

Many Reporting Apps and Evidence Documentation tools are designed, implicitly or explicitly, to feed this system: to produce “institutionally legible” accounts that police and courts will accept. Henne, Shelby and Harb show that this entanglement is a design feature rather than an accident, and that it carries racialised risks — a critique that connects the system directly to Racial Capitalism. For a Victim-Survivor, the choice to route a disclosure through law enforcement is rarely simple, and Survivor-Centered Design approaches increasingly treat non-carceral support as a first-class option.

In this vault

related_to::Reporting and Disclosure
critiqued_in::Datafication of MeToo
analysed_by::Four Domains of Power
related_to::Racial Capitalism

Sources

Tags: #concept #criminal-legal-system #carceral

datafication-of-metoo

The Datafication of #MeToo

Reference: Kathryn Henne, Renee Shelby & Jenna Harb (2021). “The Datafication of #MeToo: Whiteness, Racial Capitalism, and Anti-Violence Technologies.” Big Data & Society, 8(2). DOI 10.1177/20539517211055898.

Summary

A critical study of Reporting Apps — software platforms and AI chatbots that offer users emergency assistance, education, and a way to report and build evidence against perpetrators of Gender-Based Violence. Through an in-depth analysis of two reporting apps, Henne, Shelby and Harb argue that these tools construct data to fit institutionally legible narratives of violence, and in doing so reproduce racial capitalism: they extract information from users, reinforce property relations built on data ownership and accumulation, commodify “diversity and inclusion,” and often sustain problematic ties to the criminal legal system.

Its value to this vault is as a counterweight to celebratory framings of safety tech. It foregrounds the racialised dimensions of the data capital these apps generate, and warns that the design choice to “build evidence” is never neutral — it shapes whose stories become legible and who benefits from the resulting data. The authors note these dynamics are not unique to anti-violence apps but are constitutive of digital platforms generally.

Key ideas

Anti-violence reporting apps are datafication engines as much as support tools — the data they generate is itself capital.
“Institutionally legible” evidence privileges some narratives (and some survivors) over others.
Entanglement with the Criminal Legal System is a design feature, not an accident, and carries racialised risks.
Extraction, financial partnerships, and commodified inclusion recur across platforms, not just safety apps.

Connections

studies::Reporting Apps
studies::Evidence Documentation
critiques::Privacy and Safety
- Reframes “data collection” as extraction and accumulation.
examines::Racial Capitalism
addresses::Gender-Based Violence
related_to::Criminal Legal System

Sources

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20539517211055898

gender-based-violence

Gender-Based Violence

Gender-based violence (GBV) is violence directed at a person because of their gender, or that affects one gender disproportionately. It is the umbrella over Domestic Violence, Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence, Stalking and Coercive Control — the harms the tools and resources in this vault aim to prevent, interrupt, document or respond to.

In this vault

includes::Intimate Partner Violence
includes::Sexual Violence
includes::Coercive Control
includes::Domestic Family and Sexualised Violence