Between June 30, 2021 and August 18, 2026, Discreet Investigations received 644 website enquiries from people seeking help with suspected surveillance.
The concerns ranged from hidden cameras and listening devices to phone access, tracking apps and GPS devices. When an enquiry identified a suspected person, partners, former partners and family members were by far the most common group.
This report looks at what people believed might be happening when they first contacted Discreet Investigations. It reflects the concerns described in those initial enquiries — not what a later investigation ultimately found.
Report at a glance
- 45.9% of named suspected parties were partners, former partners or family members.
- 22.4% were landlords, neighbours or tenants.
- 16.2% were strangers.
- 15.5% were employers or businesses.
- Hidden cameras or listening devices were mentioned in 61.8% of all 644 enquiries.
- Phone spyware or unauthorized device access was mentioned in 25.6%.
- GPS trackers, AirTags or similar devices were mentioned in 15.8%.
The data measures the concerns people described when first contacting Discreet Investigations. It does not report the outcome of later investigative work.
Nearly half of named suspected parties were partners or family
Partners, former partners and family members accounted for 45.9% of the suspected parties identified in the enquiries — more than twice the share of any other relationship group.
Of the 290 counter-surveillance enquiries that identified a suspected person, 133 fell into this category.
| Suspected relationship | Enquiries | Share of named suspected parties |
|---|---|---|
| Partner / former partner / family | 133 | 45.9% |
| Landlord / neighbour / tenant | 65 | 22.4% |
| Stranger | 47 | 16.2% |
| Employer / business | 45 | 15.5% |
For James Glanville, President of Discreet Investigations, that relationship pattern is not surprising. In many of the conversations he has with people seeking counter-surveillance help, there is already a relationship, dispute or breakdown that gives someone a reason to suspect a particular person.
A former partner may know someone’s routine or previously have had access to a home, vehicle or phone. In a newer relationship, someone may start asking questions when the other person repeatedly seems to know where they are — at work, with friends or at a social event — despite not being told.
That does not mean surveillance is taking place. But it helps explain why access is such an important question during the consultation. Concerns about a phone, vehicle tracker, hidden camera or listening device naturally raise questions about who could realistically have had access to the device, property or routine involved.
Landlords, neighbours and tenants were the second-largest group
Landlords, neighbours and tenants accounted for 22.4% of named suspected parties.
Glanville says these enquiries can arise during disputes involving rental properties, repairs, rent, access to a unit or deteriorating relationships between people living close to one another.
A renter may believe a landlord has entered a unit while they were away. Someone may become concerned about a hidden camera or listening device in an apartment or basement unit. In other cases, the concern may involve a neighbour or tenant.
But suspicion alone does not determine whether there is something to investigate. Glanville looks at what happened, how long it has been happening, what specifically prompted the concern, who realistically had access and whether there is a factual investigative path.
That assessment is one reason the consultation stage matters before any investigative work begins.
Stranger concerns tend to look different
Strangers represented 16.2% of named suspected parties.
Glanville says these situations often look different from concerns involving a partner, landlord or employer because there may be no established relationship and no obvious reason the person would have access to someone’s home, phone, vehicle or workplace.
Where an unknown person repeatedly appears, follows someone or shows up unexpectedly, the concern may begin to look more like suspected stalking, harassment or another external threat.
That distinction can change what an investigator looks for and whether the problem is best approached as counter-surveillance, surveillance, stalking or another type of investigation.
Employer and business concerns were less common
Employers or businesses accounted for 15.5% of named suspected parties.
Glanville says workplace-related enquiries may involve concerns about confidential conversations, sensitive information, recordings, boardroom discussions or information being shared outside the business.
In those situations, the concern may be less about a personal relationship and more about information security, workplace access or suspected corporate espionage.
Hidden cameras and listening devices were the most common technology concern
The most frequently mentioned technology concern was a hidden camera or listening device, appearing in 398 of the 644 enquiries — 61.8%.
Phone spyware or unauthorized device access was mentioned in 165 enquiries — 25.6%. GPS trackers, AirTags or similar devices appeared in 102 enquiries — 15.8%.
| Technology or concern | Enquiries | Share of all 644 enquiries |
|---|---|---|
| Hidden camera or listening device | 398 | 61.8% |
| Phone spyware or unauthorized device access | 165 | 25.6% |
| GPS tracker, AirTag or similar tracking device | 102 | 15.8% |
These categories overlap because one enquiry can mention more than one concern. They are mention rates, not discovery rates: a reference to a camera, spyware or tracker means that concern appeared in the enquiry, not that a later investigation found the device.
Phones and location tracking are becoming a major part of the conversation
Glanville says smartphones and location tracking now come up regularly in counter-surveillance consultations.
One of the questions behind many of these concerns is simple:
How does this person know where I am?
Someone may believe a current or former partner knows where they are going, where they have been or who they are with despite not being given that information. That can lead to concerns about unauthorized access to a phone, location-sharing settings, tracking software or a device attached to a vehicle.
The enquiry data reflects that concern: roughly one in four mentioned phone spyware or unauthorized access, while about one in six mentioned a tracker, AirTag or similar device.
The technology may be newer, but the underlying question is often the same: who has access, and how are they getting information they should not have?
The consultation is where James determines whether there is something to investigate
The initial enquiry is only the starting point.
Glanville says one of the most important parts of his job is determining whether Discreet Investigations can realistically help. He asks what prompted the concern, what specifically happened, who may have had access, whether there is an identifiable relationship or dispute, and whether the suspected method of surveillance is plausible.
Sometimes the circumstances point toward an investigation. Sometimes they do not.
Not every person who contacts Discreet Investigations needs a counter-surveillance investigation, and not every concern presents something that can realistically be examined. Where the information provided does not point to a clear investigative path, Discreet Investigations may determine that its services are not appropriate.
That is why the 644 enquiries in this report should be understood for what they are: people describing what they feared might be happening when they first reached out for help. They are not 644 confirmed surveillance cases.
Why these concerns matter in Canada
The patterns in the Discreet Investigations data overlap with privacy and safety issues already recognized by Canadian authorities and researchers.
Women and Gender Equality Canada identifies stalking using GPS or social media, hacking, and surveillance or tracking among behaviours that can form part of technology-facilitated gender-based violence. That is relevant context for this report’s partner/family, phone-access and location-tracking findings, although it does not mean the individual enquiries in this dataset were necessarily cases of gender-based violence.
Housing raises a different set of privacy concerns. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada specifically addresses surveillance cameras in landlord-tenant relationships. Its guidance says landlords should be transparent about video surveillance and that cameras should not capture the inside of tenants’ apartments. That provides useful context for the 22.4% of named suspected parties who were landlords, neighbours or tenants without implying that anyone named in the Discreet Investigations data acted unlawfully.
Smartphone surveillance has also been studied in Canada. The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab has examined consumer spyware and stalkerware used for technology-facilitated intimate-partner surveillance, including tools capable of accessing communications and location information. That provides context for the 25.6% of enquiries mentioning phone spyware or unauthorized device access; it does not mean spyware was actually installed in those enquiries.
About the data
Discreet Investigations analyzed 644 website enquiries relating to suspected counter-surveillance received between June 30, 2021 and August 18, 2026.
Relationship findings are based on the 290 enquiries that identified a suspected person. Technology categories can overlap because one enquiry may mention more than one concern.
The analysis covers website enquiries only. Telephone enquiries are not included, and an initial website submission may contain less detail than a later consultation.
The research describes what people reported when they first contacted Discreet Investigations. It does not report the outcome of subsequent investigations, and raw enquiry records are not published.
For readers who want to review how the analysis was produced, the full methodology and public category definitions are available separately.
Sources
- Women and Gender Equality Canada — Technology-facilitated gender-based violence
- Citizen Lab — Installing Fear: A Canadian Legal and Policy Analysis of Using, Developing, and Selling Smartphone Spyware and Stalkerware Applications
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada — Privacy in the landlord and tenant relationship