It is common for younger generations to share their geolocation as a sign of affection and trust. Mobile phones have a function that can be activated to indicate location to other chosen devices, and there are also applications that facilitate this information. Each user can decide, in principle voluntarily, which people they want to know where they are at all times. Initially, it was used to locate the mobile phone in case of loss or theft. Then it became useful for keeping track of minors when they began to have some autonomy. It allowed knowing if they had already arrived home or at school and provided a dose of tranquility thanks to rapid and distant, but precise, surveillance. But in the end, it has become a form of socialization and relationship that can lead to abusive forms of control.
Australia has positioned itself at the forefront of digital security policies and the protection of minors on the internet. eSafety, its public agency responsible for this matter, warned in 2025 that almost one in five young people between 18 and 24 years old considered it reasonable to track their partner's location whenever they wanted. It was argued that these are generations that have grown up accustomed to being monitored by their parents through their phones and, therefore, have normalized allowing this access to friends and, by extension, to their romantic relationships. And so, over time, geolocation has come to be perceived as a demonstration of emotional closeness. The idea is outlandish and very perverse, because it has reversed the concept of trust. If before trust was what guaranteed individual privacy, currently, giving up privacy has become a test of trust. Losing intimacy is showing that you are transparent. Geolocation has become a kind of pseudo-presence. A way of being present without being physically present. Confirming the location of the dot of the people you love on the mobile map can generate a feeling of a certain connection. "What are you doing in Poblenou at this hour?", "I see you went to the beach this weekend...". A Friday night allows one to deduce who has stayed home and who has gone out for a good time. Or who is sleeping at home and who is not.
Internalized control
The concepts of intimacy and surveillance are changing. Or, more precisely, there are people interested in redefining their boundaries. It works like Jeremy Bentham's panopticon architectural project: a circular prison where inmates don't know if they are being watched at that moment, but they know they can be observed at any instant. This leads them to behave as if surveillance were permanent. Control becomes internalized, and it's no longer necessary to exercise it constantly. Based on this idea, Michel Foucault described a disciplinary society in which power not only watches individuals but also leads them to self-regulate. Now, sharing your mobile's geolocation is similar, but the form of surveillance is more horizontal. It works among equals and, to top it off, in an apparently voluntary way. Constant observation of the other is a form of love or belonging to a group. It's not control, it's complicity. “If I have nothing to hide, what's the problem?” Well, any disconnection or unforeseen decision made from freedom becomes a form of suspicion for whoever is watching you. The tyranny of always being transparent and public is a form of oppression and control.
