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.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    23 hours ago

    The resulting image must just basically look like a shadow, I can’t imagine that they’re going to get much internal detail with Wi-Fi considering that my router’s signal practically gets blocked by a piece of cardboard.

    This research essentially amounts to, humans can be individually identified with nothing more than low quality x-rays. Well yeah, so what, you can also use visible light and in any situation where you’re going to use Wi-Fi to detect someone, it’s got to be easier to buy a cheap CCTV camera.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 hours ago

      They explicitly went into the advantages over cameras:

      • Any light condition (of course IR lighting with IR cameras are the gold standard so this can argueably be met otherwise)
      • The ability to cover multiple rooms through walls with a device. A sub-10 GHz signal can penetrate most interior walls. People could be tracked without even being able to see a camera and by extension not knowing where to mess with to defeat surveillance.

      So perhaps a building takes a picture of everyone as they come in the front door and also establishes a ‘WhoFi’ profile for that person. They could keep track of their movement through the building while maintaining an actionable correlation to a photo.

    • Goretantath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      When they send a drone to your house they can make sure exactly where you are so they can shoot you through the wall.

    • voodooattack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      20 hours ago

      First of all: cardboard does NOT block electromagnetic waves. You need a Faraday Cage for that. And even then, it has to have holes of a certain size to block specific wavelengths/frequencies. It’s why you have a mesh on the door of your microwave for example.

      Secondly: they’re not attempting to photograph you. Just identifying your unique signature once would allow them to track your location anywhere where they have the gear installed.

      • leburb@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        EDIT: I suppose your comment is written in a way that it’s not clear whether you’re saying certain frequencies absolutely require meshes of a certain size to be blocked or if you’re just adding that extra detail about the design of Faraday cages for the hell of it. But…

        Original comment: It doesn’t have to have holes to block radiation. A continuous sheet blocks all frequencies. A mesh is just nice so we can see through the cage or allow air to pass etc.

        From the page you linked: “A Faraday shield may be formed by a continuous covering of conductive material.” “… if the conductor is thick enough and any holes are significantly smaller than the wavelength of the radiation.”

        • voodooattack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          My bad, a Farady Shield works just as well and it doesn’t need holes. But I was thinking about ways to combat this while posting and a solution involving conductive fabric was going through my head during that moment.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Given your in-depth knowledge of Wi-Fi to consider it blocked by cardboard, I somehow doubt the rest of this comment is credible…