“Disconnect from your ex”: Experiences of online control and cyberstalking

In this article, we want to share what we have learned in the last three years about the different forms stalking takes online. To that end, we will introduce data from our observation on persons who face and perpetrate this kind of violence, in what spaces and on what platforms it takes place, and what have been the legal and technical responses to cases that have been reported. Then we will illustrate with real examples explaining the challenges they have raised for our counseling model. Our work shows how digital technologies amplify or facilitate male chauvinist violence, much of which occurs in the context of sexually intimate relationships. 

Fembloc is a feminist helpline created in the year 2020, through which we offer counseling for women and LGBTQIA+ persons facing what we call DMCV or Digital Male Chauvinist Violence, which may include online control, surveillance, and cyberstalking. We also support professionals working on the circuit of care for [victims of] male chauvinist violence and persons close to survivors.

Data observation 

Cyberstalking as a type of digital male chauvinist violence accounts for 38% of the cases we have systematised in our research. It is noteworthy as a recurrent form of aggression, which is also linked to other forms of violence, among them control and surveillance, and in more than half of the cases it is also accompanied by threats, account hacking, and insults. We have found a pattern of recurrent violent behaviour, where invasion of privacy and reputational harm are exercised by means of coercion, especially in the context of sexually intimate relationships. The persistence of cyberstalking after separation underscores how digital devices and platforms facilitate the continuity of control, even without renewing physical contact or proximity. 

Cases of cyberstalking have been reported by women in a large majority (98%), with ages between 31 and 45 in more than half the cases (60%), followed by women ages 19 to 30 (18%). The aggressors are almost always former romantic partners acting individually. Apps such as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook (all owned by Meta) concentrate 70% of the cases reported, followed by services operated by Google, and to a lesser degree Apple, highlighting the central position those companies occupy in the perpetration of these kinds of violence. 

The limited effectiveness of complaints —a mere 11% are being heard before the courts— and the significant volume of negative responses from the platforms (45% of cases) and action by police (40%) reveals serious flaws in the system when it comes to protecting people who suffer these forms of violence. Furthermore, only 4% of cases have received an affirmative response from the platforms. Cyberstalking affects multiple dimensions of our lives, both at the psychological level and in our relationships and how we operate publicly. In 65% of the cases, such violence also extends to family and work environments, evidencing its impact on victims’ immediate surroundings.

The persistence of cyberstalking after separation underscores how digital devices and platforms facilitate the continuity of control, even without renewing physical contact or proximity. 

In the year 2024 we conducted a study on DMCV suffered by women users of shelters in Catalonia, which confirmed an increase in cases of attempted geolocation and tracking by former partners identified as aggressors. We classified the most common incidents in: 

1) Unauthorised sharing of information by tertiary services or analog means (family members, administration, services, etc.).

2) Use of social media, email, or online services.

3) Access to shared devices or accounts.

4) Use of specific geolocation software.

From our beginnings, we have tried to make ourselves known and build trust with professionals working with victims of violence, among them the twenty Specialised Intervention Services (SIE), which provide free support for women and their children throughout Catalonia. We believe that this collaboration explains the large number of DMCV cases referred to FemBloc.

Painful realities and banality of control 

A large majority of cases of cyberstalking that reach our helpline involve women who are in the process of separation or divorce. In such conditions, many of them suspect their former partners of using digital means to control their movements, contacts, and conversations while they are trying to remake their lives. Often they no longer live with the aggressor, but in some cases they still share the same physical space, either during their separation or because they are economically incapable of maintaining separate dwellings. In many such cases the parties have children in common, who are still minors. 

It is common for women to feel that they know less about technology than their aggressors. This heightens their feelings of digital insecurity, knowledge gaps, or even an impostor syndrome that reinforces the perception of vulnerability to possible technological control exercised by a former partner. This syndrome is a form of symbolic violence that triggers insecurity and low self-esteem in women in public or masculinised spaces, making them doubt their value and pressuring them into silence or mental blockage. To avoid speaking in abstract terms, we share real cases that illustrate the different forms cyberstalking can take:

1. Stalking through email accounts: A woman, already separated and living in a shelter, received a WhatsApp message from her former partner with a picture of their son accompanied by an ellipsis. He managed to locate her first due to an unpaid gym fee, then through a health service. Finally, we found that he had access to her email.

2. Stalking by identity theft and sexpreading: A former partner creates a false account with intimate photographs of the woman, posting them without her consent and forcing her to monitor the account and contact him.

It is common for women to feel that they know less about technology than their aggressors. This heightens their feelings of digital insecurity, knowledge gaps, or even an impostor syndrome that reinforces the perception of vulnerability to possible technological control exercised by a former partner. 

3. Surveillance by means of hidden cameras: A woman lives with her sister in a home where the aggressor has installed cameras in the entrance and the dining room on the pretext of protecting them from burglary. One day they find a hidden camera under the sofa. When they report it, the police tell them they cannot act. They succeed in recovering the recordings, which show the aggressor handling the camera.

4. Geolocation with devices (AirTag): A woman’s former partner, an IT worker, is in the midst of a lawsuit for custody of their children. He sends her a link which, when she clicks on it, blocks her phone. She suspects she is being watched. Soon after, she finds him eating in a bar across the street from her new home, the location of which was known only to her close family members. Finally, she discovers a hidden tracking device.

5. Access to unprotected devices (Alexa): A blind woman, who moves to a protected floor, installs an Alexa device to facilitate her day-to-day living. On checking it, we found that it was not password protected, allowing her former partner to access it remotely.

6. Control through linked accounts and emulators: A recently separated woman suspects that her ex has access to the information on her cell phone. He knows where she goes and with whom she speaks, and sees the pictures she shares. Later, he admits to having accessed her WhatsApp and email accounts. On his computer we find an emulator linked to a Samsung Galaxy, and sensitive information on her mental health, which he plans to use to discredit her. Also, she tells us that her children’s school is not helping. After Spring Break, other mothers are planning to collect signatures to prevent the aggressor from harassing her children at school.

7. Stalking by tracking and searching for devices: A woman starts noticing strange behaviour on her cell phone: new bars on the device screen, disappearing wallpaper, black screen. She feels that she has been being watched for some time. Her former partner appears at the same places she goes. One weekend he tracks her, intercepts her, and threatens her. Her iPhone’s search history contains locations shared between her, her daughter, and the aggressor. When he disables the setting so she cannot see him, she does the same. Then they discover that he has continued to track her through her daughter’s device, which continued to share its location with both of them.

Cyberstalking, whether real or perceived, has a deep psychological impact on women who experience it.

Revision of the FemBloc counseling model

The increase in cases of cyberstalking by former partners has led us to revise our counseling model, improving the relevant documentation, tools for intervention, and safety guidelines. The “Disconnect from your ex” sheet has been transformed into a more complete guide,[1] and our templates for digital logs[2] and device mapping[3] have been strengthened, allowing women to record and analyse events better. We will also develop new documentation on DMCV certification[4] and expand content on remote tracking methods[5] and measures to mitigate risk when living with an aggressor.[6] 

Another important issue we have identified is that many women tend to overestimate their former partners’ technical expertise and think they have installed stalkerware on their devices. 

However, our analyses have not detected stalkerware, but rather simpler forms of control, as discussed previously. This perception has led some women to make unnecessary investments in costly private investigative services, which causes frustration. All this has led us to improve our own capabilities both in digital forensic analysis and advice on when an expert investigation is really necessary and when it is not.

Conclusions 

Cyberstalking, whether real or perceived, has a deep psychological impact on women who experience it. This reality underscores the importance of solid psychosocial counseling and a careful initial evaluation that helps to distinguish between situations that warrant specialised technical intervention and those that would benefit more from emotional containment and advice. In this sense, we need to rethink our approach to referrals: when to refer victims directly, when to refer them to professionals on our care circuit, and how to do so without falling into revictimisation or making inefficient use of available resources.

One of the greatest challenges is to strike a balance between acting on legitimate suspicions —which may not be technically documented— and prioritising cases with confirmed digital male chauvinist violence (DMCV). An overload of claims without clear evidence may compromise our response to other urgent situations. However, there are no closed (sic) answers: the process is under construction and requires articulation with other professionals in survivor service circuits.

The data systematised in our Observatory and in a recent study in protective services in Catalonia, confirm that cyberstalking is a reiterative and persistent form of digital male chauvinist violence, especially in relationships with former romantic partners. This form of violence is rooted in power dynamics that are propagated in online spaces, where the perception of technological inferiority and digital insecurity intensify the discomfort of the women affected. We are still in the process of determining whether the high prevalence of such cases in our records responds to a particularity of our terms of referral —due to the proximity between Fembloc and the SIE— or if it reflects one of the more common and normalised manifestations of present-day digital male chauvinist violence.