Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

deadmantracker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 118 posts

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#51

Post by SamBam »

mmm_grayons wrote: post #31
happytoexplain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a classic fallacy in regards to abusive relationships. Something along the lines of "just leave the relationship", or, "just press charges for past abuses before the next one comes and have him taken away".

I've heard this before, but am not sure to what it refers. What is this fallacy? I always figured people could just get a restraining order or a concealed carry license if needed. Do the situations of abuse commonly preclude this?

You've heard some other responses, but also consider that the abused person still often feels like it isn't that bad, and that the abuser doesn't really mean it, etc etc (usually the result of psychological abuse).

In this scenario, it's easy for the alert part of the brain to say "let's just download this app and set it up, just for the heck of it, even though I don't really need it," and it won't feel like the same kind of commitment that is needed to actually leave the relationship, or get a restraining order etc.

Or, similarly, a concerned friend could say "I know you say he'll never take away your phone, but let's just set this up, for the heck of it." Again, the victim may agree, with the one part of their mind knowing it's the right thing to do, and providing plausible deniability for the other part of their mind.

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#52

Post by russell_h »

deif wrote: post #45
gowld wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also an absolute gobsmackingly terrible term to use for this application.

What makes you say that? It operates exactly like a dead man's switch.

Your target audience substantially isn’t men, and would probably be put off by the “dead” part too.

Since I’ll bet your target audience doesn’t already know what a “dead mans switch” is, you get a chance to come up with a better targeted term.

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#53

Post by ryanschneider »

deif wrote: post #6
woliveirajr wrote: post #3

Seems a nice option but as it happens with any other security-through-obscurity it made me wonder if the abuser reaction wouldn't be a bit harsh if it is discovered. Wouldn't it be better if the functionality is not just hidden but also includes plausible deniability? Like creating one hidden screen that is accessed when you try to guess the word using just one specific setupable word, and showing another fake / usel…

For sure, but any app store listing would give that away so that kind of obscurity only gets you so far. Apple are extremely restrictive on how you present your apps, so it will always be obvious what the app is from the listing (which is why I specifically had to use hang man, as the name of the app has to match the general functionality). I couldn't even release a separate app with the same functionality but comple…

What if the game itself was 100% vanilla and all the dead man’s switch setup was done through a website using your iCloud login? Then instead of the help button the user could configure a “safe word” that when entered triggers the notifications.

Also, doesn’t a true dead man’s switch require periodic confirmation? As in, shouldn’t it trigger _unless_ I enter my safe word as a guess every N days?

Edit: I just read the homepage, the linked page didn’t really explain the switch, just the dedicated help button in the menu, so disregard that part.

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#55

Post by moritonal »

ggambetta wrote: post #33

Maybe the words "dead man" in the name of a service about domestic abuse is not such a great idea :( It's a well known technical term for us, but probably not so much for the general public, so this could be easily misinterpreted.

It's for warning when a person is no longer capable of operating the device for any reason, one being that you've died.

In the case where someone's worried for their life, isn't it exactly the correct severity for the situation?

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#56

Post by johnmarcus »

__s wrote: post #35
ggambetta wrote: post #33

Maybe the words "dead man" in the name of a service about domestic abuse is not such a great idea :( It's a well known technical term for us, but probably not so much for the general public, so this could be easily misinterpreted.

Anyone who's used a lawn mower should know what it is

i've used a lawn mower many many times and there is no part of it I would have called a "dead mans switch". I'm sure it's technically there, but knowing the name is hardly a requirement. Also, i'm certain there is not a 1:1 overlap between abuse victims and lawn mower users.

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#57

Post by wpietri »

mmm_grayons wrote: post #31
happytoexplain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a classic fallacy in regards to abusive relationships. Something along the lines of "just leave the relationship", or, "just press charges for past abuses before the next one comes and have him taken away".

I've heard this before, but am not sure to what it refers. What is this fallacy? I always figured people could just get a restraining order or a concealed carry license if needed. Do the situations of abuse commonly preclude this?

Often, yes. Abusers are not just people who are occasionally randomly violent. They are people who are deeply controlling, and use violence as part of that control. If you're at all interested, I strongly recommend this very readable book on abuser psychology: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-He-That-Controlling-ebook/dp...

It's also important to remember that our society spent centuries where women were effectively property of men. We've been digging our way out of that, but there's still a lot of overhang. The level of cultural and legal support for women leaving abusive men varies a lot from place to place and person to person.

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#58

Post by DonHopkins »

deif wrote: post #45
gowld wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also an absolute gobsmackingly terrible term to use for this application.

What makes you say that? It operates exactly like a dead man's switch.

How is that not gobsmackingly obvious to you??! Look at the words you just typed.

There are millions of other innocuous games whose names don't invoke death, men, capital punishment, gallows, prison, nooses, lynching, strangulation, hanging, suicide, murder, etc. For God's sake, pick one of those, instead of "hangman" and "dead man's switch".

Might as well call it "Kill My Abusive Boyfriend".

The whole point is NOT to be obvious when an abusive boyfriend looks through all the apps on your phone.

Hangman's not even a plausibly amusing game. Who even plays hangman on their phone?

How about "Pokemon NO!"

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#59

Post by cassiet »

mehdix wrote: post #39
cassiet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t mine, but the number of my users with js turned off isn’t worth the effort. You guys make a lot of noise, but not a lot of traffic.

This is not only about people who disable js, but also about people with disabilities who would benefit from accessibility features on your app. With this arguement, we should also ignore them, since they might not be the ones making the most traffic i.e. revenue for us. There is also the increasing number of users who disable trackes out of privacy concerns. At lease most of the marketing guys I've seen still assume…

Accessibility isn’t being discussed here. All my sites are accessible, don’t conflate the two.

Re: Show HN: Discreet dead man's switch for victims of domestic abuse

#60

Post by TallGuyShort »

mmm_grayons wrote: post #31
happytoexplain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a classic fallacy in regards to abusive relationships. Something along the lines of "just leave the relationship", or, "just press charges for past abuses before the next one comes and have him taken away".

I've heard this before, but am not sure to what it refers. What is this fallacy? I always figured people could just get a restraining order or a concealed carry license if needed. Do the situations of abuse commonly preclude this?

Concealed carry is not an option for many people: if you have a history of alleged crime yourself, if you live in states or counties that make that unreasonably difficult, or if you are entirely dependent on the finances and will of another person (try sneaking away for the required training and time to pass a background check when you're bordering on a human trafficking situation), it's effectively impossible. There's also wait periods. People have been murdered during cooling-off periods because they didn't have a gun until it was clear their partner wanted to kill them, but by then it was too late to wait 5 days. There's only so much the police can do about your intuition, or even a verbal threat.

Restraining orders also only stop people willing to respect them. If someone wants to commit murder, the idea of violating a restraining order marginally increasing the punishment and risk of capture changing their mind is a bit laughable.

It's a long answer to this, but I'd suggest people look up the "Wanted Podcast" episode 22 to understand similar situations better. It's 2 bail recovery agents telling a story of a skip they tracked down. She had missed a court date (probably because of her situation - being effectively forced into prostitution). She was in a terrible situation, but because of drug addiction and other psychological control in an abusive relationship, she couldn't bring herself to leave. She had called her parents for help, but then called back and told them to ignore it. One of the toughest people I've ever known hesitated to confront the man controlling her life. She had a phone at times, but it could be taken away by her captor, and when she had chances to leave she wouldn't take them. I doubt she specifically would use an app like this, but it's a case of not wanting to leave, being able to leave whenever she wants, but at times it escalates and she wants to leave but loses her ability to call for help.

It's irrational, but it happens to people.

Post reply on HN