this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
556 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

73567 readers
3503 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 3) 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] modus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Time to carry a WiFi jammer

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

This has me wondering how my sack of potatoes body would look 🤣

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I know people, funded, building WiFi scanners, but for the industry. They are cheap and can scan big stuff but they are quite imprecise, I wonder if you have like to stand in a specific pose on a specific spot for it to work?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If it doesn’t get used for bad purposes it is very cool yes. So no it’s not cool at all. It’s fucked.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

People willingly provide enough tracking of themselves already

While this could have military applications, the need to generate a profile of the person you want to track makes this less of a concern for your average “carries a phone everywhere” person

[–] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Tech companies are always foaming at the mouth to get more data. Yes they know who you are but what do you think, how do you feel, how do you move? The only way to go is to get richer data. This satisfies that addiction. You really think mark Zuckerberg won’t use this against you if he can?

[–] axEl7fB5@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Can I become obese in a day to avoid being fingerprinted?

[–] dtrain@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I did that over 40 years.
Doesn’t help.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk -3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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.

[–] Goretantath@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›