The Sapienza computer scientists say Wi-Fi signals offer superior surveillance potential compared to cameras because they're not affected by light conditions, can penetrate walls and other obstacles, and they're more privacy-preserving than visual images.

[…] The Rome-based researchers who proposed WhoFi claim their technique makes accurate matches on the public NTU-Fi dataset up to 95.5 percent of the time when the deep neural network uses the transformer encoding architecture.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 161 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Ironically, a tin foil hat would probably work to prevent that kind of surveillance

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    wouldn’t that make it worse? basically any signal can bounce off you, making yourself even easier to track.

    edit: wording

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The tracking happens even with a big reflector/scatterer on your head, but as long as you dont wear it regularly, the system would have difficulty identifying you from wave propagation alone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So wear many different hats. Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 119 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 106 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    I'm generally pro research, but occasionally I come across a body of research and wish I could just shut down what they're doing and rewind the clock to before that started.

    There is no benefit of this for the common person. There is no end user need or product for being able to identify individuals based on their interactions with WiFi signals. The only people that benefit from this are large corporations and governments and that's from them turning it on you.

    Continued research will ease widespread surveillance and mass tracking. That's not a good thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • load more comments (18 replies)
    [–] 81 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Great, another dystopian way for authorities to observe me on the shitter

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I've seen some article recently that the patterns of Wi-Fi/Bluetooth (don't remember which one) interference with brainwaves can be scanned to reconstruct brainwave signature remotely, meaning that it might be possible to scan anyone's EEG from Wi-Fi/Bluetooth distance. And there are some AI advancements for reconstructing inner monologue from EEG. So maybe we're not so far from actual remote mind-reading.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [+] 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I can imagine this being initially an accidental discovery like oh every time so and so’s body interacts with the WiFi signal it’s the same pattern… until someone starts exploring this further… and then some engineer or their manager started looking for applications for this. In my experience engineering researchers especially are very good with coming up with use cases for whatever tech they’re working with, with little ethical consideration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Everything is incremental progress in some way.

    I remember years back someone doing experiments with Wi-Fi to see if a room was occupied based on signal attenuation.

    This just looks like an extension of that.

    Not everything is a giant leap

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    You think if people who publish their work publicly didn't research things like this, they would just never be discovered?

    At least this way, we all know about the possibility, and further research can be done to see what can mitigate it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 68 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    accurate matches up to 95.5% of the time

    and they’re more privacy-preserving than visual images

    Oh fuck all the way off.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 52 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Incorrect bio-signature detected, drink verification can to continue your content.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 42 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    they're more privacy-preserving than visual images.

    hhhhwat. How can they identify you and also be privacy preserving? 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 28 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Neat. Good luck protecting yourself from this.

    On the other hand, I’m seriously considering opening an Etsy shop selling foil-lined clothes. I’m pretty good at sewing. What do you think?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Someone’s going to use this to drop missiles on “baddies” with their sleeping families in 3 2 1

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    you can also take a picture of a person with a camera that senses light beams

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    95.5% accuracy is abysmal for any use case these people want to use it for

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I was having a nice day :(

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So, you're saying the tin foil hat people were right all along?!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You know, this, and the using wifi to see through walls stuff to me just immediately seemed to fall into "don't research this, it can only be used for evil".

    I don't get why we bother studying these types of things.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Reminds me of the Christian Bale batman movie where he could spy on everywhere from the bat cave. Seemed so far fetched it almost ruined the movie

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Wait… so the guys with tinfoil hats were on to something?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›