“We developed a deep neural network that maps the phase and amplitude of WiFi signals to UV coordinates within 24 human regions. The results of the study reveal that our model can estimate the dense pose of multiple subjects, with comparable performance to image-based approaches, by utilizing WiFi signals as the only input.”
You know what else let’s you see through walls? Windows. (Suck it, Linux users!)
In more than one sense, yes.
Applicable nick there…
Lead paint coming back into fashion.
I lick that 👍
deleted by creator
“we threw a deep neural network at the wall to see if it sticks”
Time to plaster your outer walls with fine wire mesh.
Wasn’t this the plot point of The Dark Knight?
We only have to enter his name to be safe.Removed by mod
Came here to say this!
Yes, but he specifically used cell signals.
If I didn’t have a reason for why Ethernet is superior, I have one now!
I am going to repeat myself forever it seems. We got it wrong when we decided that you only have privacy when someone can’t physically see what you are up to. Nothing else is treated this way. You are not allowed to drive as fast as your car can physically move. You are not allowed to go into anything locked as long as you are able to pick it. You are not allowed to steal whatever you want as long as no one tackles you for it. And yet somehow some way it became understood that merely because someone can get a photo of you they have the legal right to do so.
As if access to better technology means you should follow less moral rules vs the opposite. Someone with a junk camera of the 80s can do far less perving compared to the new cameras+drones out there.
it became understood that merely because someone can get a photo of you they have the legal right to do so.
What jurisdiction is this true? There are certainly times that there is an expectation of privacy and getting a photo of you would be illegal. Easy example: and owner of a store can’t photo you in the dressing room, the even tho they could put a camera in there. It’s the same thing here, there is an expectation of privacy in your home (or for many enclosed and private spaces), so this kind of “picture” would likely already be a violation.
Just about all of them where the government is spying on their residents. Unless you think it’s alright if the government does it?
The poster made the claim:
it became understood that merely because someone can get a photo of you they have the legal right to do so.
And now you’re talking about the government spying. Total non sequitur that has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
The posters claim goes a bit further than just “can get a photo of you”. The poster originally mentions (and it’s integral to the point) that privacy shouldn’t be predicated on the idea that so long as you are behind closed doors (ie not in view) you have the expectation of privacy. You deliberately narrowed the scope. But please understand that technically my car and the contents thereof are covered by a right to privacy. To search my car lawfully in the US you’d require a warrant. Doesn’t matter if my car is parked on the street. But you could lawfully take a photo of me in that car pretty much anywhere in “public” and that would also be considered lawful. So, what exactly is the demarcation? Where is the line drawn and doesn’t that seem rather arbitrary?
The context of the poster you responded to’s point is that the government decides and makes a line between what is private and what isn’t. And that’s further defined and enforced by laws. When you take into account the number of tools governments the world over have developed to spy on their citizens and just how many of those are then made available to or leaked to the public, and further that some of them being used in public are perfectly legal that poster has a point. We did not draw the line in the sand the right way.
To search my car lawfully in the US you’d require a warrant. Doesn’t matter if my car is parked on the street. But you could lawfully take a photo of me in that car pretty much anywhere in “public” and that would also be considered lawful.
The poster said nothing about the state. They were talking about privacy. They gave a long list of things that we aren’t allowed to do even if we are “able” to do them, and then made the false claim that we are allowed to take pictures “just because we can.” Maybe they have beliefs about the line being in the wrong place for other things, but this submission is about a type of picture, and the poster specifically mentioned taking pictures. So me talking about picture makes perfect sense, bringing in the state searching your car makes next to zero sense.
The context of the poster you responded to’s point is that the government decides and makes a line between what is private and what isn’t.
The poster said absolutely zero about the state. None. Zilch. Zip. When you accused me of narrowing the scope, you were actually projecting your expansion of the scope.
But make no mistake about it, if a cop walks by your car and sees a dead body in the back seat, they don’t need to get a warrant to search your car…because there is no expectation of privacy…which is, of course, actually what we are talking about.
Who determines privacy? Who enacts the laws? How is privacy enforced? What happens when you report someone for invasion of privacy? I don’t understand how this issue can have context without mention of the state.
And we are allowed to take pictures just because we can. If I take your picture in public? Just about nothing you can do about it unless it breaches some other law (like what you mentioned with filming in bathrooms). There are specific things I can’t do with that photo, for instance if that person happens to be famous they may have a right to publicity and their image etc. But they don’t have rights to copyright or the like. Could I post their photo in a random online forum claiming they have done something illegal? Nope? Can I blackmail them? Nope. But I can absolutely use their photo in a copyrighted way for art or even business.
I don’t understand how this issue can have context without mention of the state.
Sure, which is why I challenged them over jurisdiction on their false claim that you could take a picture wherever you want. You even seem to agree with me that that is not the case.
Could I post their photo in a random online forum claiming they have done something illegal? Nope?
Because this is libel. You are allowed to say whatever you want, “unless it breaches some other law.” Just like your limits on what pictures you can take are not “just because you can” but “unless it breaches some other law.”
It all comes down to an expectation of privacy. You have none in a public space as what you are doing everyone else can see.
And the implication of their initial point, in the context of the submission, is that this type of “photography” would be allowed because “you can” and I argue that this would already be protected under current law that there is an expectation of privacy behind in your home. Like in many (it not all?) I can’t take a picture of you in your home through a window even if I can see you from a public space, because of the expectation of privacy.
Years ago there was a journal on gait recognition through home WiFi.
This article is a year old. Do we have posting standards in here?
Sorry, I didn’t notice the date when I posted. I can take it down if requested.
deleted by creator
Duh? I don’t think anyone with the right field of study thought this wasn’t possible. It just doesn’t have good use cases.
Full body vr tracking without sensors?
The human presence sensors based on this are already on the consumer market, we just need to dial up the sensitivity.
There are already smart light bulbs you can buy off the shelf that use radio signals to see when somebody is in the room. Then it can turn on the lights automatically, without a camera or infrared sensor in the area.
No one else getting batman : the dark knight vibes ?
Y’all, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
I wonder if it’s real time? If yes then this is good for VR.
I highly doubt it, here is something that might interest you on the topic
Interesting! It could theoretically act like a Kinect if it were advanced enough, and you wouldn’t need any additional hardware.
This has a bunch of additional hardware, much more complex than the Kinect camera
scientists bout to see me on the goddamned pot.
I now have no sense of privacy anymore
