Wildlife Cameras Were Used To Harass Women In India

Technology designed to protect wildlife in India’s Jim Corbett National Park is reportedly being misused to intimidate and harass women, a new study claims.

Camera traps and drones, intended for monitoring animals, are allegedly being deployed by forest rangers to surveil local women, raising serious ethical concerns about privacy and data misuse.

“Many projects remain gender blind or view everyday practices of forest resource collection by women through a transactional or economic lens. Research has shown that forests are spaces wherein identities of women are entwined with their everyday activities in the forest,” the report explains, “Achieving an equitable and a socially just practice of biodiversity conservation requires the inclusion of gender as a key component.”

“The patriarchal gaze of society has extended into the forest because of these cameras,” Trishant Simlai, lead researcher and sociologist at the University of Cambridge told The Independent. His study, published in Environment and Planning F, reveals the impact of this misuse, including how women are being discouraged from legally collecting forest resources like firewood and fodder.

MORE: A Desired Destination

DISCOVER: The Hermès x Apple AirTag is the chicest way to not lose things

The report, based on interviews with 270 locals over 14 months, highlights how surveillance has pushed women to venture deeper into forests to avoid detection. This puts them at greater risk of wildlife attacks, as they can no longer rely on traditional safety practices, such as singing to warn animals of their presence.

“Accidents happen when tigers get surprised by our presence. We sing loudly before entering the forest and while collecting firewood, to let them know we’re here,” a local woman told researchers. However, the presence of cameras has silenced this practice, leaving women vulnerable.

MORE: Are men with cats less attractive on dating apps?

DISCOVER: This female-founded start up has developed an AI that can spot breast cancer

Marginalised Communities

The misuse of surveillance technology isn’t just a privacy issue—it reflects broader social inequalities. Simlai points out that the technology is disproportionately used to intimidate women from marginalised communities, such as Dalits. “When it comes to a 100% Dalit village, no permission is taken. They drive straight into the village, fly the drone wherever they want, and are very brazen about it,” he alleges.

India’s outdated data protection laws add another layer of complexity. “These cameras, these drones, they’re taking pictures of people as well as wildlife. So what happens to these pictures? What is the accountability? The transparency? They are not asking for consent,” Simlai stresses.

One disturbing incident from 2017 involved a camera trap capturing an autistic woman relieving herself in the forest. The image was circulated on local social media, an act researchers say was intended to shame and control marginalised groups.

MORE: 8 Eco-Friendly Travel Apps You Need in Your Life

DISCOVER: Elon Musk’s Neuralink Experiments Lead to Over 1,500 Animal Deaths

Officials Deny Allegations

Forest officials have dismissed the claims as “absurd.” Saket Badola, field director of Corbett Tiger Reserve, says the technology is used solely for wildlife monitoring and rescue operations. “If these claims were true, don’t you think people would have brought them to our attention?” he explained to The Independent‘s Maroosha Muzaffar, while promising to investigate if evidence emerges.

MORE: This AI From Japan Can Detect If Cats Are In Pain

DISCOVER: How Animal Crossing became the virtual high fashion platform you need to know about

Balancing Conservation and Ethics

Experts like Prof. Chris Sandbrook of Cambridge argue that conservation efforts must avoid unintended harm. “Surveillance technologies that are supposed to be tracking animals can easily be used to watch people instead—invading their privacy and altering the way they behave,” he said in the report.

This case raises pressing questions about the intersection of technology, conservation, and social justice—reminding us that even well-meaning innovations can have unintended consequences.