Digital dating violence is defined as physical, sexual, economic or psychological/emotional violence that occurs between dating partners via text messaging, social media and other online environments. Digital dating violence, also known as technology-facilitated violence, is also called digital dating abuse. Digital dating violence or abuse is a general concept used for behaviors that include controlling, pressuring or threatening a dating partner using digital technologies. Digital technologies include social media, online games, multimedia, smartphones or the internet. Therefore, actions that control, pressurise or threaten a dating partner through any of these media are considered digital dating violence. In addition, digital dating violence can also be committed through text messaging and misuse of social networks to bully, harass, stalk or threaten. More clearly, digital dating violence will be more understandable with the following subheadings and examples:[1]
- Behaviors aimed at controlling and pressuring a dating partner in a virtual environment
Unauthorized access (obtaining passwords used for identity verification in a virtual environment belonging to a dating partner) or taking over accounts, cyberstalking (illegally following the dating partner’s online activities), controlling or disclosing their correspondence in a virtual environment, persistently sending messages through digital channels in a virtual environment.
- Behaviors that damage the reputation of a dating partner in a virtual environment
Creating a fake profile or account in the name of a dating partner in a virtual environment, making embarrassing or criminal posts in the name of the real owner of the account from illegally seized accounts, doxing (illegally publishing or spreading personal data belonging to a dating partner in a virtual environment)
- Behaviors that will lead to financial exploitation of a dating partner in the virtual environment
Obtaining financial benefits by sending fraudulent messages to people on the friends list of the real owner of the account of a dating partner that has been illegally seized in the virtual environment, gaining unfair benefits by using the financial identity information of the dating partner in the virtual environment (internet banking or credit card information, etc.), causing financial harm to the dating partner by blocking access to accounts from which the dating partner earns money by producing content in the virtual environment are some of the actions that will lead to financial exploitation of the dating partner.
- Sharing sexually explicit images of the dating partner in the virtual environment without consent, producing them fakely or threatening to share these images, sending sexually explicit texts or images to the dating partner without consent
Sharing private images or videos of the dating partner in the virtual environment without consent. For example, revenge porn or the threat/blackmail of sharing these images, producing and sharing fake sexually explicit images about a dating partner (deepfake), sending non-consensual sexually explicit texts or images to a dating partner in the virtual environment (sexting) are actions such as.
“…In the concrete incident; although the participant’s mobile phone was not taken, the defendant created the message saying; “You love money, not Hacer…, my daughter will not meet you, leave my daughter alone, she is after deceit, I am warning you, Hacer will not have anything to do with you, it is impossible for you to get together again while I am alive…” and submitted it as evidence in the divorce case file with the claim that it came to his phone, the defendant did not accept the accusation, and in the expert report, it was stated that there was no record of the messaging that was the subject of the crime in the communication details, but that messages could be created by loading special software onto mobile phones or via the internet, and that the mobile phones from which messages were sent and received messages should be examined and compared with the communication records, considering that mobile phones have mobile operating systems and that it is possible to load programs, the mobile phones belonging to the parties should be taken, examined by an expert witness, compared with the communication records, and the legal situation of the defendant should be determined and evaluated according to the results, …to make a written decision based on incomplete examination, claiming that it does not constitute the crime of entering and remaining in a computer system, … contrary to the law…”[2]
Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, Dated 13.01.2016, Merits No: 2015/15933, Decision No: 2016/277;
“…In the incident where the defendant met the participant on the internet and maintained a friendship by video chatting on the phone and via msn for a while, upon the defendant’s suggestion, the participant, herself, her daughter and the defendant vacationed at a hotel for about 1 week, and after their friendship ended, the defendant subsequently entered the participant’s e-mail address without her consent many times, the defendant’s action constituted the crime of entering an information system in accordance with Article 243/1 of the TCK, and although the action was accepted as such in the court’s reasoning of the verdict, instead of the crime of entering an information system, the defendant was sentenced for the crime of obstructing, disrupting the system, destroying or changing data regulated in Article 244 of the TCK, and the determination of an excessive sentence for the defendant,… It is against the law…”[3]
“…according to the scope of the file and the defense that includes an admission; in the incident in question, where the defendant, who had an emotional relationship with the participant for a while, took the participant’s mobile phone and looked at the call records without the participant’s consent while the participant was getting ready; the subject of the crime in Article 132/1 and paragraph of the TCK is the content of communication and the crime in question will occur by unlawfully learning the content of the communication between certain persons, in order to be able to talk about the confidentiality of communication, there must be a communication that can be called communication between persons, there must be a means of communication between at least two persons (telephone, letter, e-mail etc.) and the parties must conduct this communication by taking confidentiality measures, since the information regarding who the participant talked to, when, how often and for how long is within the scope of personal data and cannot be considered as communication, it is understood that the defendant, who looked at the call records within the scope of the participant’s personal data without the participant’s consent and became aware of their content, is in the scope of the data in Article 136/1 and paragraph of the TCK, unlawfully giving or giving the data in Article 136/1 and paragraph of the TCK, “The verdict of acquittal for the crime of violating the privacy of written communication was rendered without considering the fact that a conviction should be given for the crime of seizure, by making a mistake in the assessment of evidence and legal qualification,…”[4]
Court of Cassation 11th Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2007/5408 Decision No: 2010/3253, Dated 18.03.2010;
“…Written decision was made without considering that the defendant’s action constituted the crime of fraud in Article 158/1-f of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 by using the information system as a tool, by somehow obtaining the password of the complainant’s wife’s e-mail address while the complainant and her husband were communicating on MSN on the internet, and by continuing to communicate with the complainant as if she were his wife, deceiving her and asking for credit for her mobile phone and selling the credits sent by the complainant from MSN,…”[5]
Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2020/2239, Decision No: 2020/5688, Dated 04.11.2020;
“The defendant … sent a friend request to the 14-year-old victim …, whom he knew from coming to the market he operated as a customer, via the social networking site Facebook under the name “…”, introduced himself as a series producer, deceived the victim into believing that he would take a role in a student series and that he would meet with a female director for this purpose, then created the perception of a female director with the messages he sent from the Facebook account he opened under a female name, convinced the victim to turn on his camera on MSN, stated that he needed to see her physique in order to play in the series and insisted in this direction, and after the victim, who thought he was communicating with a woman, took off all her clothes on her upper body and her pants and undressed until she was only wearing her underwear, and also recorded the semi-naked image of the victim on her mobile phone; As emphasized in the decision numbered 2014/14-603-2015/66 of the Supreme Court of Appeals Criminal General Assembly dated 24.03.2015; the 14-year-old victim’s physical privacy was violated semi-naked Considering that the actions of the defendant, who recorded her naked image with a mobile phone, aimed at satisfying her sexual desires and wishes, violated the privacy of private life by recording images or sounds as defined in Article 134/1 and paragraph of the TCK and sexual harassment as regulated in Article 105/1 and paragraph of the same law, as well as the crime of obscenity defined in Article 226/3-1 of the TCK due to the participation of a victim child under the age of 18 in the production of a product containing an obscene image that offends the common feelings of shame and modesty of the society, established rules of decency and is contrary to general morality, the defendant should have been punished for the crime of obscenity, which requires a more severe penalty, as per Article 44 of the TCK. However, without taking into account the age of the victim and the characteristics of the recorded image, the action was evaluated only within the scope of the crime of violating the privacy of private life by recording images or sounds, and the defendant was convicted as per Article 134/1 and paragraph of the TCK. “…to make a written decision regarding…”[6]
[1] Yıldız, M. E. (2023). Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Dijital Flört Şiddeti Teşkil Eden Yöntemlerden Doğan Ceza Sorumluluğu. Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, (2), 93-143.
[2] Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2014/30037, Decision No: 2015/14023, Dated 18.03.2015.
[3] Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, Dated 13.01.2016, Merits No: 2015/15933, Decision No: 2016/277.
[4] Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2018/8152, Decision No: 2019/4886, Dated 10.04.2019.
[5] Court of Cassation 11th Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2007/5408 Decision No: 2010/3253, Dated 18.03.2010.
[6] Court of Cassation 12th Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2020/2239, Decision No: 2020/5688, Dated 04.11.2020.