Lovable Sidekick

Well in theory every tech possibility is a “yet”, but the way I read this it seems like a person or object’s interference pattern is particular to the local signal environment - not like a fingerprint a different system could recognize at the airport.

A sufficient fix is not letting your wifi devices connect to your neighbor’s network so their router can detect you walking between it and them.

The motion sensing is more accurate in terms of fundamentally detecting movement, but if you’re going from that to assuming it can identify who you are, no it doesn’t do that. It can recognize a person as the same person it saw in the room yesterday, based on their gait and their effect on the local wifi signal, but it has no way of knowing if the pattern belongs to Old Man Wilson or Old Lady Jenkins, because there’s no database tying those patterns to people’s identities. And besides, the patterns are specific to that one signal environmnent anyway. It’s not like a fingerprint or a facial image you could record at home and then match to someone walking around in a store, which has a different signal environment.

Fascinating project! Definitely sounds like at best it might detect that somebody probably fell down, but not that Old Man Jenkins is having a bowl of Lucky Charms instead of Raisin Bran and his blood pressure is a little high - which seems to be the conclusion people are jumping to here.

I was referring to the many people who support the idea, who are individuals with a whole set of motives, some of them no doubt malicious and sinister and others who sincerely (even if cluelessly) have the of protecting their children from evil, exactly as you personally have the goal of protecting everybody from the evil you personally see.

Dunno, I don’t pretend to have the psychic powers most social media users seem to take for granted.

Good points, and well put!

The whole idea of age verification at the OS level is a foolish means to a well-intended goal.

True, and Modi campaigned on climate change denial. Oh wait, no he didn’t. The headline incorrectly sums up how a few of his statements have been interpreted by people who think if you’re not 100% on one side it means you’re 1000% on the complete opposite side.

But plopping black hats on 1.4 billion people sure makes being right and ignorant at the same time easy!

The principle that Bullshit, sprayed around often enough, becomes Air Freshener.

LOL - verification? Yeah, I got your verification right here! Here’s your verification!

Just like it’s never really about FREEDOM™

Niiice.

Wrong. You can print in LAN mode, or use an SD card without even a wifi connection. Here, I googled it for you.

The need for a constant signal to scan movement is a good point. Makes sense that nearby wifi devices can’t just be sitting there, they have to be actively transmitting to the router or there’s no signal for the target to interfere with. I must have gotten CSI and wifi scanning confused. Tbh I’m not even sure why CSI is in the article except for history, but I found the principle fascinating. In your research did you turn the intererence into anything like a heat map of a person standing in the room, or is it more of a signal fingerprint, like chromatography or spectrography?

I can totally believe when it tracks a person it can tell when the same person walks by again later. But matching people with their actual identities would require a database of wifi scan data that simply doesn’t exist yet.

“Did” is an interesting word. If somebody dug a ditch I wouldn’t say the shovel “did” the grunt work.

Bingpot!

Clarification - these are management driven layoffs. AI doesn’t drive anything, managers replace people with it.

That’s connection history. CSI motion detection software storing information it collects would be entirely independent of that. How much it saves and for how long would depend on the size of the router’s memory.