Brazilian Favela Women: How Your Standard Solutions for Technology Abuse Might Actually Harm Them
BBrazilian Favela Women: How Your Standard Solutions for Technology AbuseMight Actually Harm Them
Mirela Silva
University of Florida
Daniela Oliveira
University of Florida
Abstract
Brazil is home to over 200M people, the majority of whichhave access to the Internet. Over 11M Brazilians live in fave-las , or informal settlements with no outside government regu-lation, often ruled by narcos or militias. Victims of intimatepartner violence (IPV) in these communities are made extravulnerable not only by lack of access to resources, but by theadded layer of violence caused by criminal activity and policeconfrontations. In this paper, we use an unintended harmsframework [15] to analyze the unique online privacy needsof favela women and present research questions that we urgetech abuse researchers to consider.
This paper focuses on the peculiarities of IPV as it intersectswith technology, and the unintended harms of technology-based mitigations into a specific population: women fromBrazilian favelas. Brazil is the largest country in Latin Amer-ica, home to over 200M people, with steep ethnoracial in-equalities [7] and wide-spread Internet access [2, 23, 34]. Ofspecial note are Brazil’s favelas , i.e., low-income urban set-tlements, largely characterized by high population density,informal buildings, and lack of government regulation [40],many of which are controlled by narcotraffickers or militias(for example, 850 out of the 1,025 favelas in Rio de Janeiroare not “pacified” [20], i.e., they are unfortunately plaguedby local urban violence, wherein there are constant confronta-tions between drug traffickers and the police). According tothe 2010 Brazilian Census [11], approximately 6% (11.4M) ofBrazilians live in favelas—while cities such as Rio de Janeiroand São Paulo (the largest city in Latin America) have 22.2%and 11%, respectively, of its residents living in favelas.Brazil is also home to 40% of all femicide in Latin Amer-ica [32] and ranks third in terms of global spyware us-age [10,31]. Due to the steep social inequalities in the country,the online privacy threats IPV victims face are not the same.The favela woman is made more vulnerable by the constantclash between the drug traffic that rules her community andthe police forces that seek to gain power. In this skirmish, she is left wanting for resources that could enable her peace, withvery few ever seeking help from law enforcement [17,39], pri-marily because of her distrust towards the police, who eitherdo not have the resources to counter the favela’s leadership oris corrupt, enabling the narco leaders.Using the framework presented by Chua et al. [15] to aidin the identification of unintended harms that go beyond thetechnology sphere, we consider the unique reality of Brazilianfavelas as a case study to explore the online privacy needs ofwomen in these communities. Prior to developing solutionsto solve specific problems, we must first seek to understandthe concerns of the problem’s target population. As such,this exercise is then used to present several relevant researchquestions that may help guide future works on online privacyprotection of IPV victims in a targeted fashion, consideringculture and the reality in which they are immersed. Our goalis to join the chorus of researchers [21, 33, 36] positing thatone-size-fits-all solutions might not be effective and need toconsider the reality of specific vulnerable populations.This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes theunique characteristics of Brazilian favelas, the dire state ofIPV within them, and summarizes the sparse related workson technology abuse as IPV in Brazil. Section 3 contraststhe unintended harms caused by common mitigations fortech abuse if applied to the the Brazilian favela reality, andproposes research questions. Section 4 concludes the paper. Favelas are informal settlements in Brazil developed dueto an unmet need for affordable housing and establishedwith no outside (i.e., governmental) regulation [6]. As such,society associates favelas with precarious social problems,and its residents are often highly marginalized and stigma-tized. Approximately 2/3 of those living in favelas iden-tify as black or brown and 60% have suffered from some This paper tackles IPV from the lens of female victims and male perpe-trators. However, refer to RQ4 in Sec. 3.1 for the limitations involving thisgendered framing. a r X i v : . [ c s . C Y ] J a n orm of racial/socioeconomical prejudice [28]. Residents ofthese communities also earn an average monthly income ofUS$181 [28], significantly low when compared to the na-tional average monthly income of US$523 for white Brazil-ians [7]. The education level of favela residents is also notable:only 27% have completed the equivalent of a high school ed-ucation [28].A 2013 survey with over 750 participants in four cities(Rio de Janeiro, San Francisco, Brisbane, and London) [1]found that, of those who had never been to a favela, 64% hada negative perception of favela communities and 65% helda neutral perception of the people that live in favelas. Thesenumbers change dramatically with respect to people who hadpersonally visited a favela: only 29% had a negative percep-tion of favelas and 71% had a positive view of favela residents.Another study with 1,003 residents across 12 favelas in Riode Janeiro [28] found that 94% of residents considered them-selves happy and optimistic, and a whopping 2/3 would notmove out of a favela, even if their income doubled.Even so, favelas are very much a product of their envi-ronment. This section illustrates how the high rates of IPVcoupled with the proliferation of internet usage makes Brazil,and especially its favelas, worthy of focused research intotechnology abuse. Domestic violence in Brazil is an epidemic. According toa 2015 report [41], Brazil ranked fifth in terms of highestworldwide femicide rate. Most alarmingly, a 2014 study [5]estimates that 66% of young Brazilian women (ages 16–24)have suffered from some form of violence or control from anintimate partner. Forty-three percent of this sample also con-fessed to having witnessed their mother being abused (eitherverbally or physically) by her partner.Between 2003 and 2013, the femicide rate rose by 19.5%for black and brown women [41] (the predominant races offavela dwellers). In 2013, there were only 500 Delegacias daMulher (specialized police departments responsible for han-dling IPV) in Brazil [3] and in 2019, only 2.4% of Braziliancities were home to women’s shelters [16].
The favela victimof IPV is even more vulnerable and fragile compared tothe average Brazilian as she is extremely limited in heraccess to resources that would allow her to escape an IPVsituation [4, 35, 39].de Seixas Filho et al. [17] interviewed 80 women in theComplexo do Alemão, one of the largest favelas in Rio deJaneiro, and concluded that this community had both alarm-ingly high rates of violence against women and scarce servicesfor them. Of the women interviewed, 85% reported havingsuffered IPV, but only 10% went on to fully report their casesto the police, due to lack of information, fear of her aggressor,and/or lack of faith in the justice system. In 91% of these IPVcases, their aggressor was a current or former partner. Conversion rate used: US$1 to R$5.35.
Brazilian favelas, however, are not uniformly the same.The Complexo da Maré, home to 16 favela communities andover 140,000 residents, is not pacified (i.e., they face constantviolence between the invading police forces and the crimi-nals in power). A recent study interviewed staff workers at aReference Center for Women’s Care (CRAM) located in theMaré [39] and found that the goal of the women who sufferIPV in this community was solely the end of their partners’abuse towards them, without ending their relationship withtheir partners (due to financial dependence or simply love) norinvolving law enforcement. Not only did some of the victimshave little faith in the justice system, but they also feared thatthe police would invade the Maré on their behalf—risking re-taliation from narcos, especially since many of their partnerswere themselves involved in the drug trade. As such, escap-ing to shelters or using the justice system are only seen aslast-case scenarios; instead, the women often resort to askingthe drug gangs for help in the hopes that “correctional mea-sures” outside of the Brazilian criminal justice system will betaken towards their abusers. The authors emphasize that thesehighly complex scenarios have no easy or quick solutionsand attempting to simplify the problem could instead exac-erbate it. As such, the vulnerability of women in favelasis further entangled in their constant violations of rightsby their partners, the State, or the drug traffickers thatrule their communities . Abuse that is not physical in nature(e.g., threats, harassment, or humiliation) are rarely seen inBrazil as a form of abuse by both men [3] and women [17,39]alike. This is especially alarming as moral and psychologi-cal violence are oftentimes precursors to physical violencein IPV situations [3, 12, 29]. de Seixas Filho et al. concludethat providing women with knowledge and information is anurgent need in favelas, calling for the use of technology andthe internet as the only ways to reach many favela women.
Despite these social inequalities, the use of internet-connecteddevices is nearly universal in Brazil. Among adults ages 18–55, 92% own or have access to smartphones; this rate variesamong generations, but ages 18–34 take the lead, wherein awhopping 85% own a smartphone [34]. (This is especiallyconcerning given that tech abuse victimization is highestamong women under the age of 25, as detailed in Sec. 2.3.)SMS texting was never accessible for the average Brazil-ian, as the cost of SMS was as much as 55 times higherthan in North America, a price far too expensive for mostBrazilians [37]. This problem was solved with the adventand popularization of WhatsApp, allowing people to sendmessages for free. By 2016, 96% of Brazilians who owneda smartphone used WhatsApp as their primary method ofcommunication [37]. Now, WhatsApp is not only a personalcommunication medium for Brazilians, but used by (smalland large) businesses and government agencies for communi-cation. For example, it is common for Brazilians to schedule2ppointment to services or for medical doctors to communi-cate with their patients informally via WhatsApp. These ratesall reflect Brazil’s ranking of the world’s fifth highest numberof Internet users [23].Although favelas are markedly of lower SES, they nonethe-less are still highly connected communities. A 2013 study con-ducted in 63 favelas in several metropolitan cities in Brazil [2]found that 9 out of 10 favela residents owned a smartphone,and half had access to the Internet—a number that rises to78% for those between the ages of 16 and 29. Of note, 1 in 4residents admit to sharing their WiFi with a neighbor due thefavelas’ culture of sharing.
In October of 2019, Brazil ranked third in terms of global spy-ware usage [10, 31]. But research that touches on technologyabuse perpetrated by intimate partners in Brazil is scant. Itis slightly easier to find research in Brazil on related topics,e.g., stalking victimization , which can involve real-world con-tact (e.g., physically following a victim or showing up to theirworkplace) and/or contact in the online domain (e.g., sendingunwanted texts or tracking someone’s location).In this vein, nonprofit Instituto Avon [5], found that 32%of young Brazilian women (ages 16–24) have had an intimatepartner check their email or social media without their permis-sion, and 15% were forced to reveal their Facebook passwordsto their partner. Boen and Lopes [13] interviewed 205 univer-sity students in Campinas (located in the state of São Paulo)and found that most victims of stalking were women, with87.5% of stalkers being someone known to the victim. Alarm-ingly, 50.4% of the students surveyed reported experiencinga stalking incident—a significantly higher number comparedto the 16.7% reported by the CDC [12]. This could be dueto the sample’s average age of 24.7, which can nonethelesshighlight that stalking is more prevalent amongst the young(also supported by the CDC). But as the authors acknowledge,this study was conducted on a small and specific subgroupof students from a private university. It can be reasonablyassumed that the students were of relatively high SES com-pared to the Brazilian favela population, due to access to bothhigher and privatized education.Security and privacy research in Brazilian favelas is nearlynonexistent, with Arora and Scheiber [9] as a clear exception.The authors used a myriad of ethnographic methods on 22Brazilian and 22 Indian youths living in favela-like dwellingsor peri-urban areas. They found that all youths struggled todefine privacy, while the Brazilian participants were morecautious and distrustful of the Internet than their Indian coun-terparts. Yet in the context of relationships, the Braziliansnonetheless were comfortable with sharing their cellphonePIN/password with their partners. This mentality is supportedby [5], wherein 51% of participants revealed that they sharethe PIN/password for their mobile devices with their partners.Although a good first step, the context of technology abuse as a form of IPV was outside the scope of Arora and Scheiberand therefore remains an unstudied enigma.
Chua et al. [15] proposed a framework for identifying a se-ries of unintended real-world harms of countermeasures incybersecurity, summarized into seven broad categories: (1)
Displacement of harm onto others; (2)
Insecure Norms thatencourage potentially greater harm; (3)
Additional Costs thatburden the stakeholder; (4)
Misuse of the countermeasure tocreate new harms; (5)
Misclassification that can incorrectlylabel non-malicious content/individuals as malicious; (6)
Am-plification causing an increase of the very behavior targetedfor prevention; and (7)
Disruption of other or more effectivecountermeasures. We use this framework to exemplify andemphasize the idea that the favela woman’s reality comeswith a plethora of nuanced and delicate considerations thatthe cybersecurity community must consider whilst developingsolutions to related problems. Tech abuse as a form of IPV isstill an open problem with no best practices available [25]; assuch, the countermeasures detailed below are not exhaustive.
Check the suspect device’s privacy settings.
Although datais not specific to favelas, Brazil is listed among countrieswhere less than half of the population possesses basic com-puter skills (e.g., copy and paste, sending email with attach-ment) [8]. This countermeasure may therefore displace harm to individuals without computer or privacy literacy, such asyoung Brazilians in favelas [9]. This could also create an insecure norm by giving victims a false sense of privacy.WhatsApp Web, for example, allows WhatsApp to be usedon other devices, detectable only if the victim were to rou-tinely monitor the app’s settings for the addition of suspiciousdevices.
Attempt to leave or move away from abusive partner.
Thisyet again displaces harm to the favela woman, who may havenowhere to escape; not only do most people in favelas preferto remain in their communities [28], but the favela woman inIPV situations will only consider leaving her partner or fleeingto a shelter in worst-case scenarios [17, 39]. Moving awaywould also come with additional costs of possibly tremendouspsychological, financial, and social repercussions. This actmay also trigger a misuse of the countermeasure, placing thefavela woman in greater harm if her partner is a member of thefavela’s narco network, wherein escaping could be used as areason for further abuse (e.g., losing contact with her children,gang revenge, social isolation from other favela residents).
Seek police help.
This countermeasure has an inherent mis-classification between what the police and the favela womanbelieve will be the best solution; as such, IPV victims in fave-las rarely report their abuser to the police [17, 39]. This mayalso cause an amplification of violence, as police are simplynot welcome in favelas, and may incur the ire of narcos inthe favela, risking not only her life, but also coming at the additional cost of social isolation from other residents.3 ecrease technology use.
As explained in Sec. 2.2, What-sApp is ingrained into the Brazilian lifestyle. Isolation fromWhatsApp means losing her support circle and would be mis-used by the abuser to further isolate his victim. This couldalso come with the additional cost of loss of income as 47%of favela residents have “informal jobs” [27], and access toWhatsApp to communicate with clients is pivotal. Internethas also become necessary in favelas to study and seek aneducation, and of the low SES Brazilians that have accessto the Internet, 85% access the Internet exclusively throughtheir smartphones [38]. Therefore, this could disrupt othercountermeasures, as removing access to the Internet wouldfurther isolate victims from opportunities of growth and help.
Replace or discard suspect device(s).
Similarly, low SESfavela women that are financially dependent on their abuserwould not be able to incur this additional cost nor might it beworth the risk of amplification of violence as retaliation.
Do not share phone with others.
This would displace harmonto the favela woman, as there is a culture of sharing withinfavela communities [5, 9, 28, 38]. Smartphones are also some-times shared within families as the only way to access theInternet [38], and misclassifying who she cannot trust withher phone could lead to the additional cost of losing some inher social support circle or an amplification of violence.
Although other works [14, 19, 26] have been equally criticalof these aforementioned mitigations, research also shows thatprivacy and security solutions must be targeted [15, 21, 33, 36,42]. As such, this exercise raised several questions that canhelp guide future work on technology abuse in IPV scenarios: (1 ) What available tools or mitigations can be leveraged forthe favela woman?
Examples such as EasyTro [22], whichhelps U.S. IPV survivors file temporary retraining orders, orHavron et al. ’s [21] clinical computer security approach toprovide personalized technology abuse help from technolo-gists, can be starting points, but must be heavily adapted tofit the needs of the favela woman. Technology can also cre-ate “invisibility cloak” capabilities for communication andlocation privacy that does not raise red flags for abusers and,if confronted, gives the victim plausible deniability. Ideasinclude adding random noise to real location in a way that isbelievable (e.g., [30]), or the implementation of ephemeral(Snapchat-like) communication in WhatsApp without havingto resort to known ephemeral apps. (2 ) How can information be disseminated to affect changewithin the very populations we aim to help?
Women in favelaswant to be informed, and are able and willing to do so viatechnology [17], but many have low education levels [28],low privacy literacy [9], and lack an awareness of their ownrights [17, 39]. Practical guides that break technical solutionsdown to fine grained levels while using language appropriatefor the average favela woman’s educational level are needed. (3 ) What biases are researchers bringing to the tech abuse discussion?
As noted in Freed et al. [18], we, as researchers,must navigate our own biases as the IPV survivor is the ulti-mate authority on their situation. Outsiders have an inherentlynegative bias of favelas [1], and it may be more difficult forus to be welcomed into favelas and earn the trust of victimsin self-reporting their perceptions. Without researchers’ ac-cess to their reality, effective solutions cannot be developed orevaluated. We must work within the limitation that the favelawoman is unlikely to leave her abuser or the favela [17, 39].Several works [3, 9, 17, 39] also address that the domesticsphere in Brazilian society is tethered to the patriarchy withmany women complicit in it. Monetary costs are undoubt-edly a factor, but many of the additional costs described inSec. 3 focus on the impacts of social isolation, and as such,we cannot undervalue the social component of the favela. (4 ) What other vulnerable populations are in the favela?
Thispaper focused on tech abuse from a lens of women as itsprimary victim. But it is also imperative to recognize that menas victims are largely under-reported and underrepresentedin this context. This mindset can also be heteronormative,leading to the exclusion of the LGBTQ+ community, which,in Brazil, faces high victimization rates of discrimination,violence, and homicide [24]. (5 ) How exactly is technology abused in favelas?
Much ofthe works cited about IPV in favelas were conducted in Riode Janeiro, and problems faced in Rio may not necessarilytransfer into other regions of Brazil. Sec. 2.3 also focusedlargely on the problems of stalking victimization and onlineharassment. Cyberbullying and revenge porn, for example,might be promising research interests for favelas. Arora andScheiber [9], for example, found that Brazilian youths fromfavelas held views that women victim of revenge porn are atfault for their own victimization. (6 ) How can research in favelas be propagated into othercommunities?
Favelas are not necessarily “unique” to Brazil;informal settlements can be found in several countries allover the world. While they all share commonalities that canundoubtedly be leveraged, each country or region’s socio-political background is different. Solutions and mitigationsthat help ameliorate the problem in these regions will un-doubtedly provide insight and innovations focused on privacy,with great potential of benefiting other ethnic groups in theU.S. and abroad.
This paper aimed to show that technology abuse in Brazilianfavelas, though highly under-reported and not fully studied,is an issue worthy of attention. The presence of high rates offemicide and intimate partner violence (IPV), coupled withhigh rates of Internet use is on par with the requirementsof technology abuse. But public and academic awareness ofthis issue is still scarce. Via the use of an unintended harmsframework, we highlighted the unique vulnerabilities of thefavela woman in scenarios of IPV and technology abuse, and4uggested research questions to help guide future works.
References [1] Perceptions Survey. Technical report, Catalytic Com-munities (CatComm). Accessed: 2020-5-16.[2] Metade dos moradores das favelas tem acesso à internet. https://epocanegocios.globo.com/Informacao/Resultados/noticia/2013/10/metade-dos-moradores-das-favelas-tem-acesso-internet.html , October 2013. Accessed: 2020-5-16.[3] Percepções dos homens sobre a violência domésticacontra a mulher. Technical report, Instituto Avon, DataPopular, November 2013.[4] Mulheres sofrem violência no asfalto ou na favela -Geledés. , August 2014. Ac-cessed: 2020-5-16.[5] Violência contra a mulher: o jovem está ligado? Techni-cal report, Instituto Avon, 2014.[6] Sustainable Favela Network: Map (2017). Technicalreport, {Catalytic Communities (CatComm)}, February2018.[7] Desigualdades Sociais por Cor ou Raça no Brasil. Tech-nical report, IBGE, 2019.[8] Measuring digital development: Facts and figures. Tech-nical report, International Telecommunication Union,2019.[9] Payal Arora and Laura Scheiber. Slumdog romance:Facebook love and digital privacy at the margins.
Media,Culture & Society , 39(3):408–422, April 2017.[10] BBC News Brasil. ’Stalkerware’: o software que espi-ona seu parceiro cada vez mais usado no Brasil.
BBC ,October 2019.[11] Luiz Bello. Dia Nacional da Habitação: Brasiltem 11,4 milhões de pessoas vivendo em fave-las. https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-agencia-de-noticias/noticias/15700-dados-do-censo-2010-mostram-11-4-milhoes-de-pessoas-vivendo-em-favelas , August 2017. Accessed:2020-5-15.[12] Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G.,Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R.The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey(NISVS): 2010 summary report. Technical report, Na-tional Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2011. [13] Mariana Tordin Boen and Fernanda Luzia Lopes.Vitimização por stalking: um estudo sobre a prevalênciaem estudantes universitários.
Revista Estudos Femi-nistas , 27(2), 2019.[14] R Chatterjee, P Doerfler, H Orgad, S Havron, J Palmer,D Freed, K Levy, N Dell, D McCoy, and T Ristenpart.The Spyware Used in Intimate Partner Violence. In ,pages 441–458, May 2018.[15] Yi Ting Chua, Simon Parkin, Matthew Edwards, DanielaOliveira, Stefan Schiffner, Gareth Tyson, and AliceHutchings. Identifying Unintended Harms of Cyber-security Countermeasures. In , 2020.[16] Daiane Costa, Constança Tatsch. Treze anos apósLei Maria da Penha, só 2,4% das cidades têm casas-abrigo para mulheres. https://oglobo.globo.com/sociedade/celina/treze-anos-apos-lei-maria-da-penha-so-24-das-cidades-tem-casas-abrigo-para-mulheres-23972179 , September 2019.Accessed: 2019-11-30.[17] José Teixeira de Seixas Filho, Flavia Miranda de Fre-itas Xerfan, Sílvia Conceição Reis, and Patrícia MariaDusek. Análise da violenlência doméstica no amvienteda favela.
Revista Valore , 5(0):5013, April 2020.[18] Diana Freed, Sam Havron, Emily Tseng, Andrea Gal-lardo, Rahul Chatterjee, Thomas Ristenpart, and NicolaDell. “Is my phone hacked?” analyzing clinical com-puter security interventions with survivors of intimatepartner violence. In
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (PACM HCI) , volume 3, pages202:1–202:24, New York, NY, USA, November 2019.ACM.[19] Diana Freed, Jackeline Palmer, Diana Minchala, KarenLevy, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. “A Stalker’sParadise”: How Intimate Partner Abusers Exploit Tech-nology. In
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems , number Paper667 in CHI ’18, pages 1–13, New York, NY, USA, April2018. Association for Computing Machinery.[20] Roberto Godoy and Roberta Pennafort. Rio tem 850 co-munidades controladas por traficantes ou milicianos, dizestudo. https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/agencia-estado/2017/09/27/policias-e-forcas-armadas-mapeiam-850-areas-no-rio-sob-dominio-do-crime.htm ,September 2017. Accessed: 2020-5-26.[21] Sam Havron, Diana Freed, Rahul Chatterjee, Damon Mc-Coy, Nicola Dell, and Thomas Ristenpart. Clinical com-puter security for victims of intimate partner violence.5n , pages 105–122. USENIX Association, 2019.[22] Lydia Horne. Coders Who Survived Human TraffickingRewrite Their Identities.
Wired , April 2020.[23] Internet World Stats. Internet Top 20 CountriesWith the Highest Number of Internet Users. , June2019. Accessed: 2019-12-7.[24] Andrew Jacobs. Brazil is confronting an epidemic ofanti-gay violence.
The New York Times , July 2016.[25] Charlotte Jee. How “stalkerware” apps are letting abu-sive partners spy on their victims.
MIT TechnologyReview , July 2019.[26] T. Matthews, K. O’Leary, A. Turner, M. Sleeper, J. P.Woelfer, M. Shelton, C. Manthorne, E. F. Churchill, andS. Consolvo. Security and privacy experiences and prac-tices of survivors of intimate partner abuse.
IEEE Secu-rity and Privacy , 15(5):76–81, 2017.[27] Daniel Mello. Covid-19: 70% dos moradores de favelastiveram redução da renda. https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/economia/noticia/2020-03/covid-19-70-dos-moradores-de-favelas-tiveram-reducao-da-renda , March 2020. Accessed: 2020-5-26.[28] Káthia Mello. Com 2 milhões de moradores, fave-las do Rio seriam 7ª maior cidade do país. http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/2014/09/com-2-milhoes-de-moradores-favelas-do-rio-seriam-7-maior-cidade-do-pais.html ,September 2014. Accessed: 2020-5-16.[29] Kris Mohandie, J Reid Meloy, Mila Green McGowan,and Jenn Williams. The RECON typology of stalking:reliability and validity based upon a large sample ofNorth American stalkers.
Journal of Forensic Sciences ,51(1):147–155, January 2006.[30] Sashank Narain, Aanjhan Ranganathan, and GuevaraNoubir. Security of GPS/INS Based On-road LocationTracking Systems. In , pages 587–601, 2019.[31] Erika Nishida. O brasileiro gosta mesmoé de monitorar o cônjuge via stalkerware. https://gizmodo.uol.com.br/brasileiro-monitorar-conjuge-stalkerware/ , October 2019.Accessed: 2019-10-16.[32] OAS. IACHR expresses deep concern over alarm-ing prevalence of gender-based killings of womenin brazil. , February 2019.Accessed: 2019-10-16. [33] Daniela Oliveira, Harold Rocha, Huizi Yang, Dono-van Ellis, Sandeep Dommaraju, Melis Muradoglu, De-von Weir, Adam Soliman, Tian Lin, and Natalie Ebner.Dissecting Spear Phishing Emails for Older vs YoungAdults: On the Interplay of Weapons of Influence andLife Domains in Predicting Susceptibility to Phishing.In
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems , CHI ’17, pages 6412–6424, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM.[34] PagBrasil. Mobile in Brazil: Usage Stats and User Pro-file. , March 2019. Accessed: 2019-12-7.[35] Danielle Faria Peixoto. A espacialidade da violênciacontra a mulher: Um estudo de caso na favela de rio daspedras (RJ).
Women’s Worlds Congress , 2017.[36] E. M. Redmiles. "Should I Worry?" A Cross-CulturalExamination of Account Security Incident Response. In ,pages 920–934, May 2019.[37] Fernanda Saboia. The Rise of WhatsApp in Brazil IsAbout More than Just Messaging.
Harvard BusinessReview , April 2016.[38] Gabriel Sabóia. Sem internet, estudantes defavelas não conseguem se preparar para o Enem. https://educacao.uol.com.br/noticias/2020/04/28/sem-internet-estudantes-de-favelas-sofrem-com-preparacao-online-para-enem.htm ,April 2020. Accessed: 2020-5-26.[39] Marisa Antunes Santiago, Hebe Signorini Gonçalves,and Cristiane Brandão Augusto. Maré de Mulheres:Reflexões sobre a Justiça para Mulheres em Situação deViolencia Numa Favela Carioca. ex aequo - Revista daAssociação Portuguesa de Estudos sobre as Mulheres ,(40), December 2019.[40] Renata Bessi Santiago Navarro F. Terrorized byPolice Raids and Mass Displacement, Rio Prepares forOlympics. https://truthout.org/articles/terrorized-by-police-raids-and-mass-displacement-rio-prepares-for-olympics/ ,July 2016. Accessed: 2020-5-16.[41] Julio Jacobo Waiselfisz. Mapa da violência 2015:Homicídio de mulheres no brasil. Technical report,ONU Mulher, OMS/OPAS, Secretaria de Políticas paraas Mulheres, 2015.[42] Delanie Woodlock. The abuse of technology in domesticviolence and stalking.