Innovation Without Safety Isn’t Progress
Every generation of technology promises to make our lives easier.
Smartphones help us stay connected. GPS helps us find our way. Smart home devices automate everyday tasks. Many of these innovations have tremendous benefits and improve accessibility in critical ways.
But history has shown us something else: new technologies are often adopted faster than we understand how they may be misused to harm, exploit, and abuse people.
For those working to end sexual violence, that reality matters.
At the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence (OAESV), we often say that sexual violence is not an individual issue: it is shaped by the systems, policies, and environments in which we live. Technology is no exception. Increasingly, we see new technology become another avenue for stalking, harassment, coercive control, image-based abuse, and violations of privacy.
Survivors See Risks Others May Miss
Recent conversations surrounding automated license plate reader systems (ALPR), such as Flock Safety cameras, and wearable technologies, including Meta’s AI-enabled smart glasses, demonstrate why survivor safety and privacy must be part of conversations about emerging technology from the very beginning.
Flock camera systems1 have received growing national attention and criticism. Much of the public conversation has focused on privacy, government surveillance, civil liberties, and the use of automated license plate readers to monitor immigrants or individuals engaged in protected activities. These concerns deserve careful attention. From the perspective of the anti-sexual violence movement, another concern must also be part of this conversation: reports that individuals with authorized access have used these systems to locate or monitor current or former intimate partners and others to stalk them.2 The Institute for Justice found at least 26 cases nationwide of officers allegedly abusing ALPR data this way, with the bulk of those incidents happening since 2024. As communities debate the role these systems play in public safety, we must also ask what safeguards exist to prevent surveillance technologies from facilitating stalking, coercive control, or retaliation.
Wearable technology raises a different, but equally important, set of concerns. Devices capable of discreetly recording video or audio create new opportunities for violations of privacy, image-based abuse, and nonconsensual recording in spaces where people reasonably expect dignity and autonomy. As these technologies become smaller, more sophisticated, and increasingly integrated with artificial intelligence, distinguishing between ordinary interactions and unwanted surveillance becomes more difficult. In June of 2026, Meta announced its new collaboration with celebrity Kylie Jenner, unveiling a more fashion forward version of Meta glasses—featuring a smaller LED recording indicator and integrated AI. Privacy advocates have raised questions about biometric data collection, facial recognition capabilities, and whether existing laws adequately protect people from being unknowingly recorded.3 As these devices become smaller, less conspicuous, and more sophisticated, so too does the likelihood increase that they will be used in ways that violate privacy and cause harm.
The Sexual Violence Movement Brings Essential Expertise
The anti-sexual violence movement has decades of experience understanding how abusive individuals adapt to new technologies. Whether the tool is a hidden camera, GPS tracker, social media platform, spyware application, or wearable AI device, the pattern is familiar: technology intended for one purpose can become a tool of abuse in another. This experience gives advocates an important perspective that should inform public policy.
Before governments purchase surveillance technology or companies release new consumer devices, policymakers should ask:
- How could this technology facilitate stalking, sexual violence, intimate partner violence, or coercive control?
- What safeguards exist to prevent misuse?
- Who has access to sensitive information?
- What accountability exists when misuse occurs?
- How can we partner with, and consult, survivor advocates to craft safer policy responses?
Building Technology Policy That Builds Safety
Location information can be lethal when it falls into the wrong hands. Any legislation governing automated license plate reader systems should prioritize survivor safety alongside broader public safety conversations.
That includes:
- Strong limits on who may access location data and under what circumstances.
- Independent auditing and meaningful penalties for unauthorized searches.
- Clear, narrowly tailored retention periods that minimize the collection of information about people who are not suspected of criminal activity.
- Transparency regarding how data is collected, shared, and retained.
- Opportunities for survivor advocates, privacy experts, and civil rights organizations to participate in the development and oversight of these systems.
As states consider legislation, OAESV encourages policymakers to examine emerging policy proposals, including Massachusetts H.3755, which incorporates many of these protections while preserving the ability of law enforcement to use license plate readers in legitimate criminal investigations.
Wearable recording technology presents a different set of challenges. Many of our privacy laws were written before AI-enabled wearable devices existed. As these technologies become more common, lawmakers should evaluate whether existing statutes adequately address covert recording, biometric data collection, and other emerging forms of technology-facilitated abuse.
Potential approaches include:
- Requiring recording indicators that are visible, functional, and difficult to disable.4
- Establishing clear legal protections against nonconsensual recording in settings where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Modernizing laws addressing image-based abuse to account for wearable recording technologies and AI-enabled content.
- Providing schools, employers, healthcare settings, and victim service organizations with clear guidance regarding the use of wearable recording devices in sensitive environments.5
- Evaluating whether additional safeguards are needed around biometric data collection, storage, and use.
Conclusion
New technologies will continue to emerge. Some will improve our lives in meaningful ways. Others will present challenges. The question is whether survivor safety, privacy, and autonomy will be considered before harm occurs rather than after.
Survivor advocates should have a seat at the table whenever governments, schools, businesses, or technology companies consider deploying emerging surveillance technologies. The anti-sexual violence movement has decades of experience understanding how abuse evolves alongside technology and helping survivors heal from the long-lasting impacts of technology-facilitated abuse. That expertise should help shape technology governance before harm occurs, not simply after problems emerge.
This publication was supported by the Rape Crisis Trust Fund, administered by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.
1 See more on automatic license plate readers and Flock Safety
2 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/07/police-losing-jobs-flock-cameras-alprs
3 https://www.wired.com/story/meta-smart-glasses-face-recognition-nametag-connections
4 See Pennsylvania House Bill 2603, requiring all smart glasses and body-worn recording apparatuses used, sold, or manufactured in the state to feature an un-disableable visual indicator light during audio or video recording. OAESV notes that while some manufacturers rely on visual recording indicators as the sole privacy safeguard, these measures alone are unlikely to provide everyone with meaningful protection. Recording indicators can be overlooked, obscured, or altered, and they do not substitute for informed consent or strong legal protections.
5 In 2026, Utah passed House Bill 42, prohibiting smart devices from being worn/used in K-12 schools.