The Hidden Map of Coercive Control
SAFECHAIN™ · Digital Safeguarding
Location Tracking: The Hidden Map of Coercive Control
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Technology has fundamentally changed how we move through the world.
Our phones tell us the quickest route home. Smartwatches record our morning walks. Fitness apps map our running routes. Family location-sharing services help parents know their children have arrived safely. Cars record journeys. Social media tags where we are.
For most people, location technology provides convenience and reassurance.
For someone experiencing domestic abuse, however, the same technology can become an invisible map of coercive control.
Location tracking is no longer limited to hidden GPS devices. It is built into the digital services many people use every day.
The question for safeguarding professionals is no longer whether location tracking can be used to abuse someone.
It is whether institutions are prepared to recognise it when it is disclosed.
Control Without Being Present
One of the defining features of coercive control is that physical proximity is no longer required to exercise power.
A perpetrator may never appear outside a survivor's home.
They do not need to.
If they can see where someone is, where they have been, who they visit or how long they stay, they may continue to exert influence over daily life without ever being physically present.
Technology has made that possible.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Location-enabled coercive control can occur through a wide range of technologies, including:
family location-sharing applications;
smartphone location services;
shared cloud accounts;
vehicle tracking systems;
wearable devices;
fitness and health applications;
photo metadata;
social media check-ins;
Bluetooth tracking devices;
connected vehicles and navigation systems.
A survivor may receive messages such as:
"Why did you stop outside that house?"
"I know you weren't where you said you were."
"Who were you visiting this afternoon?"
"You switched your location off. What are you hiding?"
These questions may appear ordinary when viewed individually.
Taken together, they reveal something very different.
They demonstrate surveillance being used to monitor behaviour, restrict freedom and maintain control.
The Psychology of Constant Observation
Location tracking does not merely reveal where someone is.
It changes how they behave.
When a person believes they are constantly being watched, they may begin to:
avoid seeking support;
stop visiting friends or family;
cancel appointments;
avoid domestic abuse services;
limit travel;
alter routines;
withdraw from employment or education.
Over time, surveillance becomes self-regulation.
People change their own behaviour because they expect someone else is watching.
This is one of the defining characteristics of coercive control.
When Professionals Miss the Pattern
Many organisations still interpret location concerns as technical or privacy issues.
A survivor may report:
"My former partner always knows where I am."
The immediate response may be:
"Have you changed your password?"
While important, that question alone is insufficient.
Safeguarding professionals should also ask:
How might this information be obtained?
Has access to shared accounts been removed?
Are connected devices still linked?
Is there a wider pattern of coercive control?
Does this behaviour create ongoing fear or restrict daily life?
Location tracking should not be viewed simply as a cybersecurity issue.
It may be evidence of domestic abuse.
Beyond GPS
Modern location data extends far beyond maps.
People unintentionally reveal their movements through:
banking transactions;
ride-sharing applications;
online shopping deliveries;
smart-home devices;
workplace applications;
photographs containing location metadata;
digital calendars;
connected vehicles.
No single application may reveal the whole picture.
Together, they can create a remarkably detailed record of someone's life.
Institutional Fragmentation™
One organisation may know a survivor has reported stalking.
Another knows unusual banking activity has occurred.
Another holds reports about unwanted contact.
Another has safeguarding concerns relating to children.
Another records repeated address changes.
Each organisation sees one fragment.
Few see the complete pattern.
This is Institutional Fragmentation™ in practice.
The risk is not hidden because information does not exist.
The risk remains hidden because the information is distributed across disconnected systems.
Questions Every Organisation Should Be Asking
If your organisation supports people experiencing abuse, ask:
Do staff understand how location-enabled coercive control occurs?
Are professionals trained to identify digital surveillance?
Can survivors safely review connected devices and shared accounts?
Do safeguarding assessments consider technology-enabled stalking?
Are referrals made to specialist digital safety services where appropriate?
Does your incident-recording system capture technology-facilitated abuse as a safeguarding category?
If these questions cannot be answered confidently, there is an opportunity to strengthen safeguarding practice.
A Shared Responsibility
Technology companies also have responsibilities.
Products should include:
transparent location permissions;
clear account ownership;
easy location-sharing controls;
emergency access removal;
privacy-by-design principles;
survivor-centred safety guidance.
Design decisions influence safety.
Technology should help people feel secure—not make them easier to control.
The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective
SAFECHAIN™ recognises location-enabled coercive control as an emerging safeguarding challenge that extends beyond technology alone.
It affects policing, housing, healthcare, education, financial services, employers, family justice and social care.
Effective safeguarding requires organisations to recognise patterns rather than isolated incidents, connect information responsibly and respond before surveillance escalates into more serious harm.
As technology becomes increasingly embedded in everyday life, safeguarding frameworks must evolve alongside it.
The challenge is no longer simply protecting data.
It is protecting people.
Because every location trail tells a story.
The question is who has access to that story—and how they choose to use it.
This article reflects SAFECHAIN™'s analysis of emerging safeguarding risks associated with technology-enabled coercive control. It is intended to support professional discussion and does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic abuse, contact a specialist domestic abuse service or the police.
SAFECHAIN™
Building safeguarding systems that recognise patterns—not just incidents.
Copyright
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.
Published by SAFECHAIN™
This publication is protected by international copyright law. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system, translated, or published in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the copyright holder, except for brief quotations used for academic, educational, journalistic, or review purposes with appropriate attribution.
SAFECHAIN™, Institutional Fragmentation™, Participation Integrity™, Disclosure Integrity™, Jurisdictional Integrity™, The Cumulative Harm Model™, Quick Exit™, Stealth Mode™, Journal Lock™, and all associated SAFECHAIN™ frameworks, methodologies, standards, models and publications are proprietary intellectual property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen.
This article is published to promote professional discussion, safeguarding awareness and systems reform. It does not constitute legal, cybersecurity or professional advice. Readers should seek specialist advice where appropriate.