top of page
Search

Shining a Light on the Dangerous Gap in Tracking Technology

Updated: 2 days ago

The Dangerous Gap in Tracking Technology:

How device policies can enable stalking, and why it needs to change


The rise of Bluetooth tracking devices has been framed as a convenience, a way to find lost keys, wallets, or bags.


But there is a growing and under-addressed reality: these same devices are being used to track people without their knowledge or consent.


And in some cases, the systems designed to protect privacy are doing the opposite, shielding perpetrators from accountability.

 

When safety systems fail


In a recent case, a Bluetooth tracking device was covertly placed inside a vehicle and used to monitor movements over time.


The individual responsible used the information obtained from the device to send messages detailing the victim’s location, creating fear, surveillance, and ongoing psychological harm.


When the matter was reported, law enforcement attempted to investigate.


However, the investigation reached a critical barrier:

  • The tracking device could not be linked back to an identifiable owner

  • The manufacturer advised that they do not retain accessible ownership data in a way that could be provided to police


As a result, despite clear indicators of tracking behaviour, there was insufficient evidence to meet the threshold required for further action.

 

A tale of two systems


There is a significant difference in how tracking ecosystems are designed.


According to available information:

  • Apple AirTags are linked to a user’s Apple ID and serial number

  • Apple has an established process for responding to law enforcement requests to identify a device owner

By contrast:

  • Samsung Galaxy SmartTags use rotating identifiers designed to anonymise the device

  • Data is minimised and, in some cases, not retained in a way that allows retrospective identification


This distinction matters.


Because when a device is used for harm, the question becomes:


Can it be traced back to the person responsible?


In some systems, the answer is yes. In others, the answer may effectively be no.

 


The unintended consequence of “privacy-first” design


Privacy is critical.


But when privacy design:

  • removes traceability entirely, and

  • prevents lawful investigation


it creates a structural blind spot.


This blind spot can be exploited.


Critics have already raised concerns that:

  • Some tracking systems require manual detection rather than automatic alerts

  • Alerts may be delayed

  • Cross-platform detection remains inconsistent


These gaps increase the risk that individuals can be tracked:

  • without timely detection, and

  • without accountability after the fact

 

A growing risk in domestic and family violence contexts


Tracking technology is increasingly appearing in situations involving:

  • separation and relationship breakdown

  • coercive control

  • stalking and intimidation


In these contexts, location data is not just information; it is power.


It allows someone to:

  • monitor movements

  • anticipate behaviour

  • reinforce control without physical presence


When that conduct cannot be traced back to a device owner, it becomes significantly harder to intervene.

 

This is not just a technology issue


This is a policy and accountability issue.


Questions that need to be addressed include:

  • Should tracking devices be required to be traceable under lawful request?

  • Should minimum anti-stalking safeguards be mandated across all manufacturers?

  • Should data retention frameworks account for misuse, not just intended use?


There is already movement globally toward shared standards for detecting unwanted tracking devices.


But detection alone is not enough.


Detection without accountability still leaves a gap.

 

Where to from here?


There is a clear need for:

  • Stronger, standardised anti-stalking protections across all tracking devices

  • Clear pathways for law enforcement to identify misuse

  • Greater awareness of how these devices can be weaponised


Technology should not create safe harbours for harmful conduct.


And individuals should not be left without recourse because of how a system is designed.


If you are concerned about tracking


If you believe you may be being tracked or monitored:

  • Seek support through specialist services such as

    • 1800RESPECT

    • DVConnect

  • Contact police if you are in immediate danger

  • Consider using detection tools such as AirGuard

 

 
 

Why the Lighthouse Hub Exists - The Founder's Story

 

The Lighthouse Hub was founded from lived experience of domestic and family violence, stalking and technology-facilitated abuse.

​

There was a period in my life when safety no longer felt simple. I began receiving strange messages and account alerts. Some messages suggested my location was known. My online accounts were being targeted. I found myself checking my phone, my car, my home and my surroundings, trying to understand how someone could know where I had been.

​

It is difficult to explain what that does to your sense of safety.

​

You stop moving through the world normally. You start scanning, questioning and checking everything. You wonder whether your phone is safe. Whether your car is safe. Whether your home is safe. Whether your children are safe.

​

My daughter felt that fear too.

​

As a parent, that was one of the hardest parts. It is one thing to feel afraid yourself. It is another thing entirely to see your child feel unsafe and to feel helpless in trying to protect them.

​

Eventually, a tracking device was located in my vehicle.

​

That experience made something very clear to me: technology-facilitated abuse does not just create fear. It creates an evidence problem, a safety problem and a funding problem.

​

I was able to install cameras around my home, and that made a real difference. They helped restore some sense of safety. They helped me feel like I had a way to see what was happening around me and take practical steps to protect my family.

But I could not afford everything that was needed. Dash cameras, vehicle checks, device checks and other safety technologies can be expensive. At the very time I needed practical safety tools, cost became another barrier.

​

My support worker tried to find funding for dash cameras. But because it could not be proved who was responsible, I did not meet the requirements for victim support funding. Even then, I was told there could be a wait of up to 12 months.

That does not help when safety is needed now.

​

This is the gap The Lighthouse Hub was created to help fill.

​

Victim-survivors are often expected to provide evidence of stalking, surveillance or technology-facilitated abuse before meaningful action can be taken. But the tools that may help detect, document or respond to that behaviour are often expensive and difficult to access.

​

The Lighthouse Hub works with established frontline organisations to help fund practical safety technologies for the people they support. This may include home security cameras, dash cameras, vehicle checks and device checks.

We are not a crisis service. We do not provide counselling, legal advice or case management. Our role is to support the organisations already working directly with victim-survivors by helping make safety technology more accessible when cost would otherwise stand in the way.

​

The Lighthouse Hub exists because safety should not depend on whether someone can afford the tools that may help protect them.

​

It exists because a 12-month wait does not help someone who feels unsafe today.

​

And it exists to help light the way when safety feels out of reach.

Privacy Policy

Accessibility Statement

© 2026 by Peace Paix. Powered and secured by Wix

bottom of page