“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.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1145 months ago

    Absolutely ludicrous to paint this development as anything but the wet dream of both a burglar and a police state.

    • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Also VR nerds. Current tracking is either based on the headset, so you can’t move your arms unless the headset can see them, or your arms have to be seen by lighthouses, or you rely purely on gyroscope and accelerometers for tracking, which tend to drift. So either you have blind spots, have to deal with occlusion, or will slowly drift and have to recalibrate periodically. Wifi-based tracking seems like a neat idea tbh.

      Edit: considering wifi is just photons that aren’t wiggling fast enough for us to see, I’d be surprised if the government doesn’t already have this technology behind closed doors.

      • @CleoTheWizard
        link
        English
        105 months ago

        For VR I don’t see why we wouldn’t use a variety of other technologies before we ever use WiFi. The main issue with the WiFi thing is going to be polling rates and interference (which limits polling rates). They’re also using a neural net here which requires both processing power and time so there’s latency far beyond VR uses. That’s without talking about tracking that would be needed for higher spatial resolution which this also doesn’t have currently. So it’s not impossible to use this, just not currently practical or even close.

        The real solve to that stuff is just an improvement on existing tech or maybe Lidar. With the progress that has been made on the Quest with hand tracking, I’d bet their next goal is body and face tracking so you’ll see this soon.

        As for the government having this, I doubt they really need to have it this specific to track poses or body parts. If you have a cell phone on you, they likely know exactly where you’re at in a room. If you don’t, I’m betting they have access to other important data. Motion detection, number of people, room shape and some contents, interference sources.

    • @herrvogel
      link
      English
      85 months ago

      Home automation nerds would also cream their pants if they could get their hands on this. Imagine you could use your existing wifi router to detect presence in your home. Say goodbye to shitty IR sensors that forget about your existence within 3 seconds, no more finicky radar modules that are either too sensitive or not nearly sensitive enough.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        55 months ago

        I literally just have my machine ping my phone every ten seconds. Surprisingly effective presence detection.

        • @SkoozAnu
          link
          English
          25 months ago

          How would one go about setting this up? Because that sounds really cool for home automation.

          • Daniel F.
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15 months ago

            There is this Home Assistant integration which I remember getting working. I haven’t used Home Assistant in a while though, so I can’t be a good resource if you need any help.

          • @herrvogel
            link
            English
            15 months ago

            It’s a very crude way of detecting presence for a variety of reasons, and likely won’t be as useful as you imagine.

            The biggest problem is how modern smartphones handle networking when they’re locked. They enter a power saving state where they don’t respond to all pings, or they respond late enough that the pinger decides the device is just not there. Of course there are ways around it, but those are things you need to do explicitly so it won’t work on all devices until you’ve taken the time to set it up.

            And since it detects a mobile device’s existence in the local wireless network rather than the actual presence of a human being, it’s not very flexible at all. What if you want to detect the presence of a guest? Are you gonna make sure they’re on your network with their devices set up to properly respond to pings? What if you forgot to turn on your phone’s wifi after turning it off?

            I mean it does work once you’ve set it up, but do expect it to have a very limited scope in what you can and cannot do with it.

    • @assassinatedbyCIA
      link
      English
      55 months ago

      Honestly, I wouldn’t be at all shocked if uncle sam and his favourite three letter agencies have been playing around with this tech for years.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    815 months ago

    I mean you can look through my walls if you want, but don’t come crying to me if you don’t like what you see.

    (I’m painting fantasy miniatures. They’re for a friend.)

  • @Agent641
    link
    English
    685 months ago

    You know what else let’s you see through walls? Windows. (Suck it, Linux users!)

  • @iAvicenna
    link
    English
    375 months ago

    “we threw a deep neural network at the wall to see if it sticks”

  • @NeoNachtwaechter
    link
    English
    355 months ago

    Time to plaster your outer walls with fine wire mesh.

  • EnsignReposti
    link
    fedilink
    345 months ago

    Lets hope the government is transparent about its use of this technology.

    • LazaroFilm
      link
      English
      315 months ago

      All the information you want to know is available at: REDACTED

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      175 months ago

      Article is from a year ago. Government tends to be ahead of the curve. As an uninformed guess, they have been using it in high value situations for 4+ years.

      (Dear FBI, the above is a guess based on public information. I don’t know shit.)

      • @abhibeckert
        link
        English
        115 months ago

        Government tends to be ahead of the curve.

        I dunno what world you’re living in, but I live in a world where police still do nearly all their work with pencil and paper and if you want to talk to a police officer, no you can’t talk to them on the phone or send an email. You’ll have to have a meeting face to face.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          105 months ago

          Actually, police do tend to be reasonably ahead when technology is invasive. I’ve heard many stories about them seeing through walls with other technology. They also tend to like face-tracking, which is pretty advanced. They just are really far behind on technology that could be used to hold them accountable.

      • @wikibotB
        link
        English
        145 months ago

        Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

        TEMPEST is a U. S. National Security Agency specification and a NATO certification referring to spying on information systems through leaking emanations, including unintentional radio or electrical signals, sounds, and vibrations. TEMPEST covers both methods to spy upon others and how to shield equipment against such spying. The protection efforts are also known as emission security (EMSEC), which is a subset of communications security (COMSEC).

        to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

          • @Asudox
            link
            English
            55 months ago

            wdym by “does this work here?”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              65 months ago

              There was an incredibly annoying and useless bot on Reddit that ranked other bots based on comments like that.

  • @AWittyUsername
    link
    English
    225 months ago

    Wasn’t this the plot point of The Dark Knight?

    • @hakunawazo
      link
      English
      115 months ago


      We only have to enter his name to be safe.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        45 months ago

        The whole point of that scene was that he was overstepping the line.

        But then cops wear Punisher logos and Republicans play Born in the USA at election rallies, so who knows how the masses interpreted it…

    • @sh1ggy
      link
      English
      25 months ago

      Came here to say this!

    • @Desistance
      link
      English
      25 months ago

      Yes, but he specifically used cell signals.

  • Atelopus-zeteki
    link
    fedilink
    225 months ago

    Umm, article from Jan 19, 2023. I remember seeing it then. Is there anything new on this?

    The paper: [Submitted on 31 Dec 2022] - I’m not sure if it’s out of prepublication yet.
    DensePose From WiFi - https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.00250

    Here’s another tidbit from July 2, 2023 DensePose from WiFi - See through the walls. - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/densepose-from-wifi-see-through-walls-alejandro-fernández

    And another from July 25, 2023 Revolutionary Applications of DensePose From WiFi: Enhancing Corporate Security and Empowering Military Tactical Teams - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/revolutionary-applications-densepose-from-wifi-enhancing-zack-hamm

  • Dog
    link
    English
    215 months ago

    If I didn’t have a reason for why Ethernet is superior, I have one now!

      • Dog
        link
        English
        35 months ago

        Hey, I don’t want IRL wallhacks 😭

  • @Maggoty
    link
    English
    175 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      115 months ago

      I’m an EE, and I have serious doubt about this actually working nearly as good as they are putting it. This sort of stuff is hard, even with purpose built radar systems. I’m working with angle estimation in Multipath environments, and that shit fucks your signals up. This may work it you have extremely precisely characterised the target room and walls, and a ton of stuff around it, and then don’t change anything but the motion of the people. But that’s not practical.

      • @Maggoty
        link
        English
        45 months ago

        It’s Popular Mechanics, of course it doesn’t work as well as they say it does. But the theory has been around a long time.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        45 months ago

        You are correct, at best this requires some a priori knowledge of the room. You can kind of do basic motion detection blindly though. They are just measuring the channel response via the 802.11 preambles, so for basic presence detection knowing that the channel response is changing is enough.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        I was under the impression these experiments required a pre mapped room with EM readings. I don’t think they can watch you like if it was an X-ray but I’d believe it if they could track blobs of moving mass.

    • @deafboy
      link
      English
      55 months ago

      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.

    • brianorca
      link
      English
      35 months ago

      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.

  • @afraid_of_zombies
    link
    English
    175 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      65 months ago

      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.

      • @atrielienz
        link
        English
        25 months ago

        Just about all of them where the government is spying on their residents. Unless you think it’s alright if the government does it?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          05 months ago

          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.

          • @atrielienz
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              15 months ago

              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.

              • @atrielienz
                link
                English
                15 months ago

                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  15 months ago

                  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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    155 months ago

    Henceforth, the building code shall make mandatory that every room be perfectly grounded Faraday cages (/s).

    Still, imagine lethal drones integrated with that technology (of course, they already have infrared, maybe even some adequate wavelength of X-rays).

    Nevertheless, pretty cool to see how far we can take preexisting technology with the help of some deep learning layers.

    • @Maggoty
      link
      English
      85 months ago

      Here’s what they’re putting in the goggles that Infantrymen wear now.

      I don’t care to guess what the drones are packing.

      • Shurimal
        link
        fedilink
        35 months ago

        What we know about drones is that they have cameras that can discern individuals from 10 km altitude.

        What we suspect is that US has Hubble-sized spy satellites that can do almost the same. There were a lot of classified military STS missions.

        What is theoretically possible is that US drones and spy sats can function as very large arrays (we do this with astronomical telescopes already) to dramatically increase spatial resolution.

        • @Maggoty
          link
          English
          25 months ago

          I’d believe it. When I was in the infantry 20 years ago we could see you 3km away with the optics mounted on our machineguns. And several kilometers with cameras mounted on towers. I don’t know how far they went but it was at least 5km because we were directing mortar fire with them and that’s about the range of the mortar system we were using.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Oh I wonder if that’s how the Pic was taken that trump tweeted out of that rocket launch site, people didn’t think it was physically possible for a satellite to have that resolution

          • Shurimal
            link
            fedilink
            15 months ago

            It all comes down to the size of the mirror/lense—the bigger, the better. Up to a point. The biggest problem is air currents and different air densities refracting light and distorting the image. That’s what these laser beams are for on photos taken of astronomical observatories—they give reference light spot that can be used to calibrate adaptive optics to current atmospheric conditions reducing distortion.

    • @BreadstickNinja
      link
      English
      35 months ago

      Based on the cell phone reception in my house, I already suspect it’s a Faraday cage.

    • theodewere
      link
      fedilink
      15 months ago

      near future building insulation will include enhanced EM spectrum insulation, to prevent or distort leakage into the environment

    • @Asudox
      link
      English
      35 months ago

      Add a ! at the start to embed images.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Sadly lots of features are not working on kbin, or less specifically various services in the fediverse. One example is spoilers. Last I checked there is no consistent spoiler syntax that works across the fediverse, and so spoilers are dangerous territory. Hell, even some apps don’t handle spoilers appropriately just for Lemmy.