Ordinary WiFi can now identify you with near-perfect accuracy(sciencedaily.com) |
Ordinary WiFi can now identify you with near-perfect accuracy(sciencedaily.com) |
Unless we do something, this will be used to covertly break the fourth amendment.
Ring cameras recording your movements around the neighborhood.
Flock (and other government) cameras recording all vehicle movements.
Cell towers and WiFi APs recording device ids and movements.
Recent legislation requiring driver monitoring systems in cars. Plus the fact that any EV can be remotely controlled and disabled.
And now we have AI systems that can actually aggregate and correlate all this data.
It’s over. We’re too far down this slippery slope, there’s no turning back now.
Not with that attitude.
This mentality is exactly how we got here. Thanks
I would say to never use a wireless router given to you by your ISP, and to install Openwrt on the one you do use, but the government is absolutely chomping at the bit to ban all wireless routers whose firmware can be changed and to force you to use their (soon to be if not already backdoored) ones.
Also, if you have a home NVR then wired cameras are definitely the way to go. Wireless cameras are susceptible to jamming and/or deauth attacks.
Any references to support these claims
The last computer I purchased, before the memory crunch, has no wireless card
I deliberately omitted it
I use this computer as a router among other purposes
Many computers work well as routers
A ban on wireless would be acceptable to me
Convenience and aesthetics aside, wireless sucks compared to wired
We wouldn't have street lights if the Fourth Amendment could prevent the monitoring of people in public. If I can install a webcam pointed at an intersection and stream it publicly, anyone and everyone can, and eventually enough public webcams like that create a network that anyone can use to track what's going in public. The only thing we can really do is ensure knowledge of what people do in public is kept public.
Flock extracts value from public information and there's nothing Flock can do to prevent competition. Flock is only a problem for the moment because they have a relative monopoly on public information and can make claims or provide evidence nobody can contest, but eventually we're going to decide we shouldn't trust a private entity like Flock to accurately report reality any more than we should trust anyone else with a private agenda.
Individuals may use this tech themselves, and businesses may use it on their own premises, which seems fine—the problem is with large scale deployments.
I find protecting civil liberties valuable.
Notice that it doesn't matter if you are using Wifi. If you're in a city, I doubt there are many places that lack Wifi radio waves.
Thank you to the researchers (seriously) for revealing this to the public rather than selling it to the highest bidder. Though I suspect that, given how obvious it is once you think about it - all these radio waves solve many problems of passive imaging - it's already known to some people.
> The researchers presented their results at the "ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security" (CCS) in Taipei.
This citation at the bottom might be the paper:
Julian Todt, Felix Morsbach, Thorsten Strufe. BFId: Identity Inference Attacks Utilizing Beamforming Feedback Information. , DOI: 10.1145/3719027.3765062
"My nut" if you want to call that, was usurped by a lot of technocrats and now snot-nosed little brats that think they know what they are up against. However, you are free to think what you like.
Sliced bread (commercially available after the automobile!) comes to mind, as do antibiotics--which also have some negative consequences to go along with the benefits.
Very few people would be willing to trade in the opulence of today.
Radio transmission of data is over 100 years old we aren’t turning the dial back on that, but this one specific application of it to track people is and that’s the problem.
I think it's annoying that this gets repeated without revealing the actual stats: this is for the BFI test, it's 99.5% ± 0.38, where 40 samples per person were split 80-20 in training and testset.
Edit: sorry, you said "using this technology" and I missed that - this doesn't uses the same tech
> By analyzing that information, the system can generate images of people from multiple viewpoints. Those images can then be used to determine a person's identity.
This is the extent of the description of the magic sauce. Why are those images so unique that you can’t trick the algorithm? I can’t think of any EM based identification that can’t be tricked by adding layers of reflectors or absorbers in various points - a mask, special paint, etc.
What we can do is identify that a person-like object exists in a room, not necessarily Sally Jones from 123 Main St, as they try to imply by saying they are "able to infer people's identities with almost 100% accuracy."
What they're claiming is science fiction.
We will simply have to adapt to it.
Sounds like the perfect AdTech! /s
That's why it continues to be peddled.
Don't ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been, ever, for any reason whatsoever.
WAPs are independent of routers, but many low-end consumer routers provide integrated WiFi, which can usually be turned off if desired.
Most WAPs provide a means to set the TX power levels, and some newer ones will automatically negotiate with the client(s) to use the minimum required power to close the link (just as cellular phones do).
The fact you think these things are equal to WiFi probably means you are in a generation that has always been connected.
You are talking about sliced bread, whereas I am talking about bread that happens to be sliced. We are not the same.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-important-...
What we need now is laws that turn this ruling into action and policy.
Every "progressive" actually called you an extreme right-winger for suggesting that that was a problem in the government meeting weekly with every social media company making suggestions about who and what speech to ban. The brownshirts are already well-practiced. There is no one on the constitution's side, including the ACLU.
SCOTUS has ruled that tipping politicians is legal. Literally, not hyperbolically. Even if the Supreme Court couldn't be bribed like that (although they are eagerly and constantly bribed like that) because they don't have a fear of losing their jobs, Congress is the only court that can try a president for going against court judgements. Doesn't exist anymore.
This is not entirely accurate anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
> In 2026, the Supreme Court limited the application of the doctrine to digital location data as well. Chatrie v. United States held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it compels Google to provide a user's historical location information, even though the data is held by a third-party techonology company.