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.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 days ago

      We study it because EVERYTHING can be used for good or evil.

      If we’d stopped researching anything that could be used for evil we’d never have gotten into the stone age

      • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yeah, like, why learn how to split the atom if all we can do is splode stuff. It’s not like we can cure cancer or power things without emitting planet killing gasses or anything.

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    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

  • Sundiata@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    And this here folks is the true ending. No one there is going to stop it as always.

    Congratulations! You are now fully fucked!

    There is the draft dodger, he is located in building #52556 in this city, info updated 125 milliseconds ago. He left his phone at his house 5 states away, go get him.

  • besselj@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

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

  • unmagical@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    8 days ago

    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.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      First - someone comes up with this. Next, privacy researchers and black/white/grey hat techies come up with methods to defeat it.

      Better for surveillance tech research like this to be published out in the open than developed in some secret lab. I figure these researchers are doing more positive than negative by publishing their findings. It’s not like if they didn’t publish, someone else wouldn’t come up with this and possibly use it clandestinely.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      There is no end user need or product for being able to identify individuals based on their interactions with WiFi signals

      Cat tracker

      • unmagical@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 days ago

        Probably not.

        This kind of thing relies on the fact that the emitter and environments are static, impacting the propagation of the signals in a predictable way and that each person, having a unique physique, consistently interferes with that propagation in the same way. It’s a tool that reports “the interference in this room looks like the same interference observed in these past cases.”

        Search and rescue is a very dynamic environment, with no opportunity to establish a local baseline, and with a high likelihood that the physiological signal you are looking for has been altered (such as by broken or severed limbs).

        There are some other WiFi sniffing technologies that might be more useful for S&R such as movement detection, but I’m not sure if that will work as well when the broadcaster is outside the environment (as the more rubble between the emitter and the target the weaker your signal from reflections against the rubble).

        Don’t think of this as being able to see through walls like with a futuristic camera, think of this as AI assisted anomaly detection in signal processing (which is exactly what the researchers are doing).

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Being able to scan and model a 3D environment using wifi? Sure. Wifi-fingerprinting the people in the scan? Why?

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          I mean I don’t understand this as a lay person, so if it doesn’t work then fair enough, but if wifi signals can identify human beings, and pets, when a building collapses better than other methods, or even augment the capabilities already used, then at least there is some benefit from this technique. It’s not going to disappear, Genie is out of the bottle now, so why not at least put it to a good use instead of keeping it only being abused by the billionaires and other evil entities.

          It’s too late now to stop that and I hate that they can do this.

          Please don’t mistake me trying to find a silver lining as anything other than trying to find a reason that this isn’t just another way we are fucked but the science is what it is so out it to better use. It’s an interesting capability regardless of how it can be abused, and since we aren’t going to stop using the technology we should really understand exactly how this works by using it and making it was beneficial as possible… Until we were ready to ban the tech, which I have no faith that we will ever.

          A bespoke device made to do this, not just your wifi router at home, might as well study it for good praises, or we may if only be abused with little defence against our collective abusers

  • Seleni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    accurate matches up to 95.5% of the time

    and they’re more privacy-preserving than visual images

    Oh fuck all the way off.

    • D_C@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 days ago

      When anyone or anything says that their product works “up to x%” I always presume it doesn’t really work at all.
      Christ, 1% is included in that “up to 95.5%” vague bullshit statement.

      • toynbee@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I hate it when commercials say “up to 100%.” It’s literally a pointless metric; that could mean anything from 0% to 100%, inclusive.

        edit: Closed quote.

      • novus_dervish@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        I believe the reason they had to say “up to” is because the “signatute” will vary day to day ever so slightly (natural weight fluctuation), and if you gain or lose weight it can change dramatically, so the AI would have to constantly consider that and adjust it’s records.

        Honestly, unpopular opinion, but as long as it isn’t very short wavelength RF and they allow for self-hosted/open-source alternatives, I do find it a bit more privacy respecting than cameras, of course they have to say they are using the technology in public places.

        It also has it’s ways of fooling it, instead of wearing a wig and a false nose, you could wear a carbon-infused silicone fat suit to change the way you interact with RF.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    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?

    • MysteriousSophon21@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      You’d need fabric with continuous metallic threads that form a complete mesh to actually block the 2.4/5GHz signals - most DIY foil approaches leave gaps that WiFi can still penetrate thru.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I feel like you’re overthinking this. There are people who buy crystal-infused drinking cups to reset their personal feng shui. (Spoiler: it’s just glitter.)

        I really wish I didn’t have morals. It’s so easy to make money if you’re willing to fleece people.

        e: autocorrect