Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence in India

Draft · sources not independently verified

Draft. Sources not independently verified. Prepared by the Digital Catalyzt team; check every statistic, law, quotation and contact detail against the original source before relying on it. Not legal, medical or peer-reviewed advice. In an emergency call 112.

CASE STUDY 50

Survey evidence on online abuse, reporting barriers and survivor-centred responses

Prepared by Digital Catalyzt | Research and product-design draft | 29 October 2026

1. Abstract / Executive Summary

This case study reviews the BreaktheSilo survey report by The Dialogue and the Alliance for Cyber Trust and Safety, described by its publisher as a survey of 4,000 respondents across 10 Indian cities. It examines technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), including cyberstalking, doxxing, impersonation and online abuse, and highlights reporting barriers and the need for coordinated platform, legal and support responses. The publisher summary does not provide every sampling and weighting detail, so the report does not treat the survey as a nationally representative prevalence estimate.

2. Keywords

technology-facilitated gender-based violence; cyberstalking; doxxing; impersonation; online abuse; India

3. Introduction and Research Question

What response gaps arise when gender-based abuse is enabled or amplified by digital technologies, and how can a safety product support people without increasing exposure or surveillance?

4. Methods and Evidence Selection

Secondary review of the publisher’s description of the BreaktheSilo survey report and related reporting. No original survey, interviews, platform audit or independent statistical reanalysis was conducted.

5. Case / Research Context

Digital services can be used to stalk, impersonate, threaten, expose private information or distribute manipulated and intimate imagery without consent. Harms can extend beyond the online environment through reputational damage, emotional distress, coercion and threats to offline safety. Responses often require coordination among platforms, law enforcement, legal services and trusted support networks.

6. Findings and Evidence

The publisher describes a survey of 4,000 respondents across 10 Indian cities; the report covers women, LGBTQIA+ people and other groups affected by online abuse.
The report identifies forms of abuse including cyberstalking, doxxing, impersonation and economic fraud, and describes psychological and social consequences.
The publisher summary identifies low reporting and systemic barriers to access to justice as concerns.
The report recommends stronger survivor support, platform accountability, digital literacy and a coordinated multi-stakeholder response.

7. Discussion and Interpretation

Technology-facilitated abuse is not a single incident type. A person facing impersonation may need account recovery and evidence preservation; a person being tracked by a partner may need device-safety guidance and discreet support. A one-size-fits-all “report” button can be insufficient and may create additional risk if an abuser monitors the device or account.

8. Legal / Policy Context

Platform and institutional responses should provide accessible reporting, preserve evidence where lawful, explain case-status and confidentiality limits, and avoid requiring survivors to repeatedly recount traumatic details. Any evidence handling or disclosure must follow applicable law and informed-consent principles.

9. Implications for VETRIPEN

Design hypotheses: user-controlled incident notes; secure export of evidence without automatic upload; discreet support information; clear deletion and sharing controls; and threat modelling for shared devices, account compromise and notification previews. Do not automatically forward screenshots, location or allegations to contacts or authorities.

10. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics

Evaluate accessibility of reporting flows, user comprehension of sharing permissions, successful export without unintended disclosure, response acknowledgement where integrations are authorised, accidental exposure incidents and user-reported safety. Do not use the number of reports as a direct measure of abuse prevalence.

11. Limitations

This report uses the publisher summary, not an independent audit of the full dataset. Sampling, recruitment, question wording, weighting and uncertainty may affect interpretation. A multi-city survey should not be described as nationally representative without confirming its design.

Implementation safeguards: informed consent; minimum necessary data; clear sharing status; accessible flows; no unapproved emergency-service integration; secure handling of sensitive information; and a documented process for reviewing failures.

12. Conclusion

The evidence reviewed supports a cautious, user-centred approach: preserve user choice, make support pathways understandable, and evaluate outcomes rather than assuming that technology or a policy framework guarantees safety. Findings must remain tied to the populations, definitions and methods of the cited sources.

13. References and Source Notes

These are the source records consulted for this secondary synthesis. Inclusion of a link does not imply independent verification of every underlying statistic or full-text detail.

14. Declarations

Research status: secondary-source synthesis; not a new field study. No external research funding or formal peer review is represented. VETRIPEN recommendations are product-design hypotheses, not validated intervention outcomes.

15. Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. Prepared privately by Digital Catalyzt as part of an independent research and product-design programme related to women’s safety and the proposed VETRIPEN service. For research, education, discussion and preliminary product planning only. Unless expressly stated and documented, this document has not undergone independent peer review and is not a journal publication, government statement, legal opinion, medical or psychological assessment, or formal investigation. Claims are limited to the sources and scope stated; sources may contain limitations, errors, incomplete data or later revisions. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice. Proposed VETRIPEN features are design hypotheses unless independently evaluated. This document does not guarantee prevention of harm, emergency response, message delivery, confidentiality in every circumstance or any particular outcome. Readers should assess cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.

← Back to all research