5 ms·

> For instance, consider a scenario in which law enforcement has a video footage of a robbery. They suspect that the robber is hiding inside a house. Can a pair

> For instance, consider a scenario in which law enforcement has a video footage of a robbery. They suspect that the robber is hiding inside a house. Can a pair of WiFi transceivers outside the house determine if the person inside the house is the same as the one in the robbery video? Questions such as this have motivated this new technology. Goodbye 4th Amendment. Would be cool if these intelligent folks but their efforts towards improving privacy.

dahart 7y ago
I don’t see any reason the existence of spy tech would damage the 4th amendment. We already have spy tech (way better spy tech than this, btw), and the amendment still works to prevent (at least some) unreasonable search & seizure. This is a neat application of WiFi signals, but the accuracy is nowhere near good enough for this to reliably ID random people. I’m way more worried about online corporate surveillance that actually can ID me reliably with 100% accuracy and get a lot more info about me besides where I am, than I am of government surveillance of my walking gait through walls.
- mlyle 7y ago
  Not to mention the posited scenario has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. If you reasonably believe a suspect is hiding in a house such that surveillance is a decent approach, you could go kick down the door. Choosing to verify first with wifi is a gentler approach.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
kspacewalk2 7y ago
I don't get this attitude. If something is technologically/scientifically feasible, it will get invented, and it will get perfected and it will get used. Military drones, human cloning, designer babies, you name it. Taking the high road just means someone else will do it instead.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- RIMR 7y ago
  I don't get THIS attitude. None of those things are ethically justified via your "somebody's gonna go it anyway" philosophy.
  - echelon 7y ago
    > Military drones, human cloning, designer babies, Only one of these is objectionable. The other two ought to be pursued so we can further advance the human race and improve the quality of everyone's lives. They're totally justified.
    - fouc 7y ago
      designer babies are objectionable?
      - onion2k 7y ago
        In the sense that it would give the wealthy an unreasonable advantage to stay wealthy forever and mean an end to social mobility, which would in turn lead to a feudal social class system, yes. The thing is though, money does that already if your society doesn't have strong inheritance taxation, so I'm not sure it's really such a problem.
    - p1esk 7y ago
      Which one? Honest question.
      - welly 7y ago
        I'm putting my bets on military drones.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      Which one is objectionable?
toomuchtodo 7y ago
FLIR is considered a search under the 4th amendment, and requires a warrant; it'd stand to reason this would face similar scrutiny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
- tyingq 7y ago
  "Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable" As tech marches on, "not commonly available to the public" becomes a smaller space. Separately, I'd hazard a guess that they still use FLIR in an indiscriminate way, and just conjure up a little parallel construction when needed.
  - rkagerer 7y ago
    If I'm not mistaken the court crafted their opinion to apply "at least" to technology "not in general public use", and was somewhat ambiguous as to more common devices. I share your concern for what will become of privacy as exotic new surveillance techniques become widespread. The legal treatment of expectation of privacy seems tied to whatever is the societal norm of the age, and that mark has shifted dramatically in my lifetime.
- cma 7y ago
  What if a neighbor uses it unprompted instead of the police?
tomc1985 7y ago
> Would be cool if these intelligent folks but their efforts towards improving privacy. There's way more money in bootlicking
TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
I’m not covered by the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution anyway.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  The vast majority of the human race isn't, I'm not sure why you were downvoted for pointing this out.
mlevental 7y ago
>Would be cool if these intelligent folks but their efforts towards improving privacy plenty of intelligent folks working on this for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
- mosselman 7y ago
  Would still be cool though.
gojomo 7y ago
You kinda have to develop the privacy-invasive technology to even know what to be defending against – especially since some of those pursuing privacy-invasive tech will be doing so in secret. So publicly sharing this research is an effort towards improving privacy, by letting other researchers & the public know what the risks are.

dahart 7y ago

I don’t see any reason the existence of spy tech would damage the 4th amendment. We already have spy tech (way better spy tech than this, btw), and the amendment still works to prevent (at least some) unreasonable search & seizure. This is a neat application of WiFi signals, but the accuracy is nowhere near good enough for this to reliably ID random people. I’m way more worried about online corporate surveillance that actually can ID me reliably with 100% accuracy and get a lot more info about me besides where I am, than I am of government surveillance of my walking gait through walls.

mlyle 7y ago
Not to mention the posited scenario has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. If you reasonably believe a suspect is hiding in a house such that surveillance is a decent approach, you could go kick down the door. Choosing to verify first with wifi is a gentler approach.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

kspacewalk2 7y ago

I don't get this attitude. If something is technologically/scientifically feasible, it will get invented, and it will get perfected and it will get used. Military drones, human cloning, designer babies, you name it. Taking the high road just means someone else will do it instead.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
RIMR 7y ago
I don't get THIS attitude. None of those things are ethically justified via your "somebody's gonna go it anyway" philosophy.
- echelon 7y ago
  > Military drones, human cloning, designer babies, Only one of these is objectionable. The other two ought to be pursued so we can further advance the human race and improve the quality of everyone's lives. They're totally justified.
  - fouc 7y ago
    designer babies are objectionable?
    - onion2k 7y ago
      In the sense that it would give the wealthy an unreasonable advantage to stay wealthy forever and mean an end to social mobility, which would in turn lead to a feudal social class system, yes. The thing is though, money does that already if your society doesn't have strong inheritance taxation, so I'm not sure it's really such a problem.
  - p1esk 7y ago
    Which one? Honest question.
    - welly 7y ago
      I'm putting my bets on military drones.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Which one is objectionable?

toomuchtodo 7y ago

FLIR is considered a search under the 4th amendment, and requires a warrant; it'd stand to reason this would face similar scrutiny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

tyingq 7y ago
"Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable" As tech marches on, "not commonly available to the public" becomes a smaller space. Separately, I'd hazard a guess that they still use FLIR in an indiscriminate way, and just conjure up a little parallel construction when needed.
- rkagerer 7y ago
  If I'm not mistaken the court crafted their opinion to apply "at least" to technology "not in general public use", and was somewhat ambiguous as to more common devices. I share your concern for what will become of privacy as exotic new surveillance techniques become widespread. The legal treatment of expectation of privacy seems tied to whatever is the societal norm of the age, and that mark has shifted dramatically in my lifetime.
cma 7y ago
What if a neighbor uses it unprompted instead of the police?

tomc1985 7y ago

> Would be cool if these intelligent folks but their efforts towards improving privacy. There's way more money in bootlicking

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago

I’m not covered by the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution anyway.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
The vast majority of the human race isn't, I'm not sure why you were downvoted for pointing this out.

mlevental 7y ago

>Would be cool if these intelligent folks but their efforts towards improving privacy plenty of intelligent folks working on this for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy

mosselman 7y ago
Would still be cool though.

gojomo 7y ago

You kinda have to develop the privacy-invasive technology to even know what to be defending against – especially since some of those pursuing privacy-invasive tech will be doing so in secret. So publicly sharing this research is an effort towards improving privacy, by letting other researchers & the public know what the risks are.