You changed the locks. You blocked the number. You left. You went no contact.
Then the notifications started. A message from a mutual friend. A tagged post on a platform you thought was private. A car you recognized — twice — on streets you had not been on before. A children’s school app showing a location you had not shared. The sense, impossible to fully shake, that you are still being watched.
You probably are.
Technology has transformed what stalking and surveillance look like after separation from a narcissistic or coercively controlling partner. The perpetrator no longer needs to be physically present. Digital technologies give them what researchers call omnipresence — the capacity to be present everywhere, at all times, without leaving the house.
This article explains how technology-facilitated abuse operates after separation, what the specific tactics look like, and how to conduct an effective technology audit to protect yourself.
Table of Contents
What Is Technology-Facilitated Abuse?
Technology-facilitated abuse — also called technology-enabled coercive control — is the use of digital technologies to monitor, stalk, harass, isolate, and control a targeted person. It is not a separate form of abuse. It is the same coercive control dynamic delivered through new channels.
Research published in Geoforum situates technology-enabled coercive control as “a continuation of harm perpetrated by domestic violence abusers, rather than a new or distinct form of abuse.” The technology changes. The underlying dynamic — the need for control, the refusal to accept the targeted person’s autonomy and freedom — does not.
What technology changes is the reach. A 2024 study drawing on survivor interviews found that perpetrators used mobile phones, social media, GPS tracking, and closed-circuit cameras to maintain surveillance and abuse during and after separation. A Women’s Aid survey found that 48% of survivor women experienced online harassment or abuse specifically after leaving the relationship — more than those who experienced it during it.
Separation does not reduce technology-facilitated abuse. For many survivors, it intensifies it.
For the specific narcissistic personality disorder dimension of post-separation abuse stalking see Stalking and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Why Separation Escalates Technology Abuse
The narcissistic perpetrator requires control. During the relationship, that control is maintained through direct access — physical proximity, shared spaces, monitored communication, financial dependency.
Separation removes that direct access. Technology replaces it.
This is not incidental. Researchers describe how perpetrators use digital tools specifically to compensate for the loss of physical access — to maintain the omnipresence that the relationship provided, and to continue the surveillance and harassment that constitutes the ongoing abuse.
One survivor account in a qualitative study captures this with precision: a perpetrator sent a message reading simply “I’m always in your inbox.” The message contained no threat. It needed none. The surveillance itself was the threat.
The post-separation period is when technology abuse most frequently escalates. Every new relationship, every new address, every professional development, every social reconnection represents a potential rupture in the perpetrator’s control. Technology closes those gaps.
The Tactics: What Technology Abuse Looks Like
Device Monitoring and Spyware
Stalkerware — software installed covertly on a target’s device — is among the most invasive and most difficult to detect forms of post-separation surveillance. It operates invisibly, recording communications, tracking location, accessing contacts, and in some cases activating cameras and microphones without the user’s knowledge.
Survivors frequently discover stalkerware months or years after separation — sometimes through a device behaving unusually, sometimes through a professional technology safety audit, sometimes through something the perpetrator reveals during legal proceedings.
Spyware is not the only method. Perpetrators also access accounts through shared passwords that the survivor has not changed, family sharing settings that were never disabled, cloud synchronization that continues to share location and communication data, and coparenting apps that provide real-time location access ostensibly for child safety.
Research published in the British Journal of Social Work documents survivors discovering GPS tracking devices in vehicles, night-vision cameras installed in bedrooms, and covert monitoring of internet search histories — all framed to the survivor, while the relationship continued, as ordinary security measures.
Location Tracking
Location tracking operates through multiple channels simultaneously. GPS devices concealed in vehicles, bags, or children’s belongings. Location-sharing apps enabled during the relationship and never disabled. Family accounts on mapping applications. AirTags and similar Bluetooth tracking devices placed in coat pockets, under car frames, or inside children’s school bags.
The scale of this problem has reached the legislative level. Ohio passed a law in late 2024 making AirTag stalking a criminal offense. Florida is developing legislation increasing penalties for using tracking devices to facilitate dangerous crimes. California enacted Senate Bill 1394 in September 2024, requiring connected vehicles to notify users of remote access and provide methods to disable it.
The MIT Technology Review notes the challenge clearly: “Tech comes first. People use it well. Abusers figure out how to misuse it. The law and policy come way, way, way later.”
Children are particularly vulnerable to being used as location-tracking instruments. Research by Dragiewicz, Woodlock, Salter, and Harris (2022) documents mothers’ accounts of children’s involvement in technology-facilitated coercive control — children whose devices report location, whose accounts provide access to the targeted parent’s communications, and who are sometimes asked directly by the perpetrator for information about the survivor’s movements and relationships.
Account Compromise and Digital Surveillance
Email accounts. Social media profiles. Banking applications. Cloud storage. Streaming services with shared family accounts. Smart home devices. Children’s educational platforms. Each represents a potential surveillance channel that the perpetrator may still have access to after separation.
Account compromise takes several forms: shared passwords not yet changed; security questions answered with information the perpetrator knows; two-factor authentication codes routing to a device the perpetrator can access; and direct hacking using information gathered during the relationship.
Social media surveillance operates without any technical compromise. A survivor’s public profile, mutual connections, tagged locations, and associated accounts provide substantial information to a monitoring perpetrator. Flying monkeys — witting or not — report on what they see on the survivor’s social feeds.
Researchers describe how perpetrators use digital means to monitor the targeted person “both live and retrospectively” — reviewing historical location data, reading archived communications, and accessing stored documents to build an ongoing intelligence picture.
Online Harassment and the Digital Smear Campaign
Technology amplifies the smear campaign exponentially. What once required the perpetrator to contact people individually now reaches hundreds of mutual connections simultaneously through a single social media post.
Online harassment after separation takes specific forms: posts on social media that characterize the survivor as unstable, abusive, or dishonest; screenshots of private communications shared out of context; reviews on professional platforms; messages to the survivor’s employer, professional contacts, or community organizations; and the creation of accounts specifically designed to harass or impersonate.
Image-based sexual abuse — the non-consensual sharing of intimate images — is a specific category of technology-facilitated post-separation abuse. The perpetrator uses intimate images captured during the relationship as instruments of coercion, humiliation, and control. Threatening to share these images is itself a form of ongoing abuse, regardless of whether the threat is carried out.
The digital smear campaign creates a searchable, permanent record. Unlike word-of-mouth reputation attacks, online content persists and is discoverable by future employers, legal professionals, community members, and — eventually — children.
Harassment Through Shared Platforms
Co-parenting apps, school platforms, healthcare portals, and financial management tools designed for separated families all require ongoing engagement with the perpetrator. Narcissistic perpetrators weaponize these platforms.
Communication platforms designed to minimize conflict — such as TalkingParents or OurFamilyWizard — are resistant to manipulation because they create uneditable records. Perpetrators sometimes refuse to use these platforms for precisely that reason, preferring communication channels that leave no auditable trail.
Where these platforms are court-ordered, the perpetrator may comply with the letter of the order while using every available message as a vehicle for harassment, gaslighting, or information-gathering. Documentation of every exchange is essential.
The Psychological Impact of Technology Abuse
Technology-facilitated abuse produces a specific psychological dimension that offline stalking does not: the elimination of any space that feels genuinely private.
The nervous system recalibrates toward safety through the gradual accumulation of experiences in which the survivor is not under threat. Technology abuse systematically prevents this. Every device becomes a potential surveillance instrument. Every account is a potential point of compromise. Every online action potentially reaches the perpetrator.
This is the omnipresence effect — the perpetrator’s capacity to maintain psychological presence without physical proximity. Survivors describe the experience of being unable to fully inhabit any space, any relationship, or any moment because the possibility of surveillance cannot be fully eliminated.
The hypervigilance this produces is not paranoia. It is an accurate response to a genuine and ongoing threat. But it prevents the nervous system recalibration that genuine recovery requires.
Recovery from narcissistic abuse while technology abuse is ongoing is specifically addressed by the Coercive Trauma Recovery Method™ — which works with the nervous system’s threat-activation in contexts where the threat has not yet been fully removed.
The Technology Safety Audit
A technology safety audit is a systematic review of every digital channel through which a perpetrator might maintain surveillance or access. Conduct it methodically. Do not rush. Missing one channel can compromise the others.
Devices
Check every device you use for unfamiliar applications — particularly any with access to location, microphone, or camera. On Android devices, review application permissions carefully. On iPhones, review location services and connected apps. Look for applications you did not install, applications that consume unusual battery life, and any device behavior that feels anomalous.
Do not conduct a technology audit on a device the perpetrator has had physical access to without specialist support. Detecting and removing stalkerware carelessly can alert the perpetrator that their surveillance has been discovered. Contact a specialist technology safety organization — such as the Coalition Against Stalkerware or CETA (Clinic to End Technology Abuse) — before conducting device scans.
Consider whether a new device — unknown to the perpetrator — is warranted for sensitive communications.
Accounts
Change every password. Use a password manager to generate strong, unique passwords for every account. Enable two-factor authentication on every account — using an authentication method tied to your own device, not a shared one. Review every account for connected applications that may have been granted access. Review security questions and change answers to information the perpetrator cannot know.
Audit every account separately: email, social media, banking, cloud storage, streaming services, smart home devices, children’s educational platforms, healthcare portals, and any shared family accounts established during the relationship.
Exit all shared accounts. Create new accounts where the perpetrator knows the login credentials. Review privacy settings on every social media platform.
Location
Check your vehicle. GPS trackers are small, battery-powered, and can be concealed in wheel arches, under bumpers, or in the interior. If you have reason to believe your vehicle has been tracked, seek specialist assistance — a mechanic, a technology safety expert, or law enforcement, depending on your circumstances.
Audit every app with location access. Review which family sharing settings are still active. Check children’s devices for location-sharing apps or family accounts. Be aware that some vehicle tracking operates through the vehicle’s own connected systems rather than a separately installed device.
Children’s Devices
Children’s devices are a frequently overlooked surveillance channel. Review every application on your children’s devices for location sharing, communication access, or account connectivity to the perpetrator. Be aware that children may be asked directly by the perpetrator to provide information — this is a form of post-separation abuse that harms children directly regardless of whether the targeted parent is aware it is occurring. For more on how children are used as instruments of post-separation abuse, see the post-separation abuse pillar. Also, check out Parental Alienation and Narcissistic Abuse: A Guide for Targeted Parents.
Social Media
Review every social media account’s privacy settings. Audit your follower and connection lists for accounts that may be monitoring on the perpetrator’s behalf. Consider whether any platform is genuinely safe to continue using, or whether new accounts under different identifying information are warranted. Be aware that even private accounts are accessible to followers — and that flying monkeys within your follow list may be reporting content to the perpetrator.
Legal Protections and Reporting
Laws addressing technology-facilitated abuse are developing rapidly but unevenly across jurisdictions.
United Kingdom: The Stalking Protection Act 2019 and the Online Safety Act 2023 provide relevant legal frameworks. Coercive control legislation covers technology-facilitated surveillance as part of the broader pattern. Contact police or a specialist domestic abuse organization.
United States: No federal law comprehensively addresses technology-facilitated intimate partner abuse. State laws vary significantly. Stalking, harassment, computer crime, and wiretapping statutes may apply. Ohio (AirTag tracking) and California (connected vehicle access) have recent specific legislation. Image-based sexual abuse is criminalized in most states.
Australia: New South Wales and Queensland coercive control legislation covers technology-facilitated surveillance. Each state and territory has stalking legislation. The eSafety Commissioner provides specialist support for online abuse.
International: The Global Coercive Control Legislation Index provides current jurisdiction-specific legal information.
When reporting technology abuse to police, document everything before reporting. Preserve screenshots, device logs, and any evidence of surveillance. Removal of stalkerware or tracking devices before documentation can compromise evidence.
Getting Support
Technology abuse is specialist territory. Generalist support services — however well-intentioned — frequently lack the technical knowledge to identify the full scope of surveillance or to advise safely on its removal.
Specialist resources include the Coalition Against Stalkerware (stopstalkerware.org), CETA — Clinic to End Technology Abuse (ceta.tech), and Safety Net through the National Network to End Domestic Violence (techsafety.org). These organizations provide survivor-specific technology safety guidance developed by people who understand both the coercive control context and the technical dimension.
For the psychological dimension of recovering while technology abuse is ongoing — including the specific nervous system impact of being unable to establish genuinely private space — a free 15-minute consultation is available.
Related Links
References
- Bailey, L., et al. (2024). The Networking of Abuse: Intimate Partner Violence and the Use of Social Technologies. Violence Against Women.
- Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Intimate Relationships: A Scoping Review. PMC (PMC10486147).
- New tools, old abuse: Technology-Enabled Coercive Control (TECC). Geoforum (2021).
- Technology-Facilitated Domestic Abuse: An Under-Recognised Safeguarding Issue? British Journal of Social Work(2024).
- Dragiewicz, M., Woodlock, D., Salter, M., & Harris, B. (2022). What’s mum’s password? Journal of Family Violence, 37(1), 137–149.
- MIT Technology Review (2025). Why it’s so hard to stop tech-facilitated abuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Indicators include unusual battery drain, the device running hot when idle, unexplained data usage, unfamiliar applications, and behavior that suggests remote access — such as the screen activating without user input. These indicators are not conclusive. Many are also caused by legitimate applications and ordinary device behavior. Do not act on suspicion alone. Contact a specialist technology safety organization — such as CETA or the Coalition Against Stalkerware — before conducting any scan, changing settings, or removing applications. Careless detection can alert the perpetrator and escalate danger.
In most jurisdictions, covert location tracking without consent is illegal. The specific legal framework depends on your jurisdiction. GPS device installation, AirTag deployment, and covert access to location-sharing applications may constitute stalking, harassment, or computer crime offenses. The challenge is evidence — proving the tracking occurred and demonstrating who is responsible for it. Document everything before taking any legal action, and seek specialist legal advice about the options available in your jurisdiction.
Yes — and this is more common than most survivors realize. Children’s devices with location-sharing enabled, family account access, and coparenting app connections all provide potential surveillance channels. Children may also be asked directly for information about your movements, relationships, and living situation — a form of post-separation abuse that harms them regardless of the targeted parent’s awareness. Review all children’s devices as part of your technology audit and seek specialist guidance where you have specific concerns.
If a perpetrator is threatening to share or has shared intimate images without your consent, this constitutes a criminal offense in most jurisdictions. Document the threat or the disclosure — preserve every message, every post, every communication relating to it. Report to police. Contact a specialist organization — in the UK, the Revenge Porn Helpline provides specialist support; in the US, the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Take platform-level action immediately — most major platforms have expedited processes for removing non-consensual intimate images.
Research consistently documents this failure. A 2024 Australian study found a “considerable gap” in frontline workers’ understanding of technology-facilitated abuse, resulting in police repeatedly dismissing reports. UK research identifies the standard DASH risk assessment tool as insufficiently developed for assessing digital coercive control — a single technology-specific question that does not capture the scope of what survivors experience. This is not a reason to avoid reporting. It is a reason to document thoroughly before reporting, to seek specialist support alongside police contact, and to persist if initial reports are dismissed.
