this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
513 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

73209 readers
4150 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] artyom@piefed.social 38 points 1 day ago (5 children)

they're more privacy-preserving than visual images.

hhhhwat. How can they identify you and also be privacy preserving? πŸ€”

[–] sorter_plainview@lemmy.today 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's all AI. You should not worry about it. In fact you should not think about it. All is going to be fine.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Well, the alternative would be a camera in every toilet stall. See how our benevolent corporate overlords only have our best interest in mind?

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They know you are a person and they can call your a certain UUID, but there will be a hard time matching you to your name etc.

Camera's can do face recognition (if your face is even in the database) to know who you are.

This only works until the point where they have your form in a database which they can check...

[–] artyom@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We have heard this non-sense before, only to find it's trivially easy to connect to your PID.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 14 hours ago

Never said that it wasn’t easy, it’s just harder than with facial recognition. In theory you could do it correctly in a way that it isn’t indentifiable.

Also this works in places where faces are protected

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

I'd imagine it's like online advertisers: they convert your fingerprint to a token to try to sell you shit, but they allegedly don't know who exactly you are or where you go. So visiting animatedllamaporn.com is still your little secret...

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They can see you're a person but not exactly who you are.

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] realitista@lemmus.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Well they can identify you are the same person but not your identity.. So it's like a disenbodied fingerprint.

I suppose they could potentially make some database and train an AI on it someday to match to actual identities, but usefulness would be pretty limited at only 95% accuracy. That's a false reading 1/20 times, so I suspect it would fail bigly to accurately recognize people from large data sets.

[–] Warehouse@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a false reading 1/20 times

And when has something like that ever stopped anyone?

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 1 points 13 hours ago

Well okay you're not wrong, there is always some sucker out there.