Unless we get legislation passed that bans this use in public and private spaces prepare for this to be combined with Flock et al to track your movements inside your house (already is being tested by some internet providers), track the moment you exit your house, track you along your route, track you inside all the business you visit.
Unless we do something, this will be used to covertly break the fourth amendment.
moscoe 2 hours ago [-]
Sadly, it’s too late. It’s quite clear we’re on track to a totalitarian surveillance state.
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.
ranger_danger 1 hours ago [-]
> 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
bigbadfeline 54 minutes ago [-]
> This mentality is exactly how we got here.
That's why it continues to be peddled.
montroser 2 hours ago [-]
This would be extremely difficult to detect and enforce.
iamnothere 2 hours ago [-]
It’s invasive enough that we will need to do something about it, even if perfect enforcement is not possible. 6G wireless already plans to include these features as well. The business model needs to be made unviable or illegal somehow, perhaps under anti-stalking grounds.
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.
upboundspiral 2 hours ago [-]
The Supreme court recently already ruled against warrantless mass surveillance along the lines you describe:
What we need now is laws that turn this ruling into action and policy.
iamnothere 2 hours ago [-]
That’s for the government, on fourth amendment grounds. But I also don’t want private companies doing this on a wide scale even for non-governmental use.
pessimizer 2 hours ago [-]
It's also for government warrants on 4th Amendment grounds. It does not cover the government simply purchasing (or asking nicely for) the information from a willing Google, perhaps also in exchange for the Justice Department settling an antitrust action, or for an unrelated lucrative contract.
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.
ranger_danger 1 hours ago [-]
> It does not cover the government simply purchasing (or asking nicely for) the information from a willing Google
> 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.
pessimizer 2 hours ago [-]
There have been virtually no restraints on the Executive Branch for nearly 25 years now. The way we elect Congresspeople now exclusively produces ones who have no interest in the risks that come from actual governance, and exclusively act on the interests of their sponsors.
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.
upboundspiral 2 hours ago [-]
The spirit of a hacker is not to ask whether it is hard, but whether it is valuable.
I find protecting civil liberties valuable.
pessimizer 2 hours ago [-]
> already is being tested by some internet providers
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.
iamnothere 2 hours ago [-]
I recommend not using wireless at all. Having a good wired home LAN removes a lot of headaches, especially if you like to experiment with alternative OSes.
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.
ranger_danger 1 hours ago [-]
Not a solution for many people, especially mobile/tablet devices.
thataccount 2 hours ago [-]
I came from the era before WiFi. One doesn't HAVE to have WiFi. Everybody keeps thinking they do. Same thing with cell phones. The world existed before all that, and it can exist just fine again without it.
halJordan 40 minutes ago [-]
I disagree. I think if you've come from the time before WiFi, with enough time before it to remember and have nostalgia for it, then you've already made your nut and are simply spending the time you have left in the relative carelessness of the upper middle class and that skews your perspective
kemotep 2 hours ago [-]
Well if every business and home and public place has WiFi or Cellular technology with these capabilities it doesn’t really matter if you don’t they will still be able to use it to track you. This is why something has to be done to stop it.
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.
thataccount 2 hours ago [-]
EMF can turn it back in about 20 seconds.
ButlerianJihad 1 hours ago [-]
"EMF" is electromagnetic frequency, which is the general topic under discussion. Perhaps in context, you are referring to "EMP" instead?
bcraven 2 hours ago [-]
"Exist" is a low benchmark to hit.
Very few people would be willing to trade in the opulence of today.
thataccount 2 hours ago [-]
It wasn't that before was "less opulent". In many ways, it was "more opulent".
1 hours ago [-]
OrderlyTiamat 1 hours ago [-]
> almost 100% accuracy
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.
Can't wait to see clothes with some thin metal wires knitted with the fabric acting like a Faraday cage or disturbing the signal enough to blur the results
nateweiss 2 hours ago [-]
The musician MIA has a line of clothes along those lines:
Good time to invest in companies that make (extremely expensive) RF shielding paint and fine wire mesh.
Bender 56 minutes ago [-]
Us poor folk have been doing this before it was cool with aluminum siding and aluminum roofs. Not perfect, nothing is. One would have to shield the gaps of course. That could be a few days work using spare pieces of aluminum. Just don't be like me, wear gloves. That stuff has sharp edges. One can also install inside shutters like the old days and cover both sides with pieces of aluminum unless they are already made from steel.
> "By observing the propagation of radio waves, we can create an image of the surroundings and of persons who are present,"
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.
im3w1l 2 hours ago [-]
Wifi imaging has been a publicly known technique for years. I think the news is more how good it's gotten.
ranger_danger 1 hours ago [-]
No it can't. I'm sorry but this article is quite sensationalist and is twisting their words around.
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.
toomuchtodo 3 hours ago [-]
Are there any projects or products today available for monitoring heart rate and respiration without needing a smart watch using this technology?
forsalebypwner 2 hours ago [-]
Yes actually, but I don't think it's technically allowed/legal in the US in the eyes of the FCC, not sure about other countries. It utilizes 77GHz FMCW, I got one for free but they retail for about $100. The part number is R77ABH1
Edit: sorry, you said "using this technology" and I missed that - this doesn't uses the same tech
toomuchtodo 2 hours ago [-]
No worries, I presume it’s only a matter of time with consumer grade wifi and machine learning.
khriss 2 hours ago [-]
Heart rate, no, but monitoring breathing is possible using mmWave radar(eg 60 GHz Doppler radar nowadays, or the 5.8 GHz band earlier). Resmed S+ was probably the most well known, but it's been discontinued for a while now. If you search around, you can still find such devices.
dotancohen 2 hours ago [-]
No
im3w1l 2 hours ago [-]
I'm personally bearish on privacy. As the cost of surveillance comes down we will see more and more actors able to conduct surveillance until even bored kids with pocket money and an afternoon can do it. Denying the """good""" guys the capabilities that all the bad guys have will be an absurdity.
We will simply have to adapt to it.
ambicapter 2 hours ago [-]
The convenient accelerationist take that lets you do whatever you want, all the time.
goda90 2 hours ago [-]
How do we adapt?
iamnothere 2 hours ago [-]
Never do anything that any group of people (or disturbed individual) might take issue with. Never accidentally date or marry an abuser. Never contest the absolute authority of whoever is in power. Simple enough, right?
RamRodification 2 hours ago [-]
Reminds me of that Michael Scott quote:
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.
reorder9695 2 hours ago [-]
"Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."
im3w1l 2 hours ago [-]
By creating a culture of live and let live. Maybe giving some activities legal protections that didn't use to need them in the past. Non-discrimination rules related to them. And being more careful than ever to not let a government be elected that would abuse all the information it now has on its citizenry. More democratic safeguards.
close04 2 hours ago [-]
> These signals, known as beamforming feedback information (BFI), are transmitted without encryption, meaning that anyone within range can potentially read them.
> 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.
newsclues 2 hours ago [-]
Wifi and cellular signals are how the military hunts and kills terrorists.
Sounds like the perfect AdTech! /s
Rendered at 20:06:41 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiFi_Sensing
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
That's why it continues to be peddled.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I find protecting civil liberties valuable.
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.
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.
Very few people would be willing to trade in the opulence of today.
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.
paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3719027.3765062
https://ohmni.com
> 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
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3719027.3765062
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.
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.
Edit: sorry, you said "using this technology" and I missed that - this doesn't uses the same tech
We will simply have to adapt to it.
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.
> 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.
Sounds like the perfect AdTech! /s