6 ms·

You can clone fingerprint like here: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30623611 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30623611 Fingerprints are still used in f

by rvnx 1y ago

You can clone fingerprint like here: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30623611 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30623611 Fingerprints are still used in forensics, because the odds that it is forged are lower than an actual possibility that it is real. Same for DNA then.

qualeed 1y ago
>Fingerprints are still used in forensics, because the odds that it is forged are lower than an actual possibility that it is real. >Same for DNA then. There's a world of difference between cloning a fingerprint/planting DNA (in the traditional sense, like fluids), and this technology. The air might carry the particulates to areas never traveled to. That... doesn't happen with fingerprints. Walking around the city with an air filter than traveling to a different city could imply that thousands of people have gone to a city they never went to before. Not happening with fingerprints or traditional DNA. The noise with this tech is way too high to be useful in privacy-damaging ways. It's useless for tracking, useless for court, and more easily game-able than any other biometric by a lot. To put it in your terms, this wont be used in forensics because the odds that it is a false positive is higher than the possibility that it is real.
- mc32 1y ago
  It can. “Door knobs” can be removed from place A and installed in location B. Or a weapon can also be placed somewhere else…
  - qualeed 1y ago
    This requires action by someone else (who also risks leaving behind evidence). The airborne stuff just spreads by itself. To far more places, far quicker, all the time.
    - mc32 1y ago
      Granted; but concentration would go down at something like inverse of some exponential of the distance from source.
      - qualeed 1y ago
        Sure. My point isn't that this isn't a biometric or something. My point is that it is the weakest biometric, full of noise, constantly contaminated, easily forged with no skill set or technology required, with a very high false-positive rate when used for anything privacy-related. There are so many more things (technology, policy, etc.), literally violating people's right to privacy at this very moment, that trying to spin this as a theoretically privacy-damaging technology strikes me as a bit ridiculous.
        amelius 1y ago
        Still great for tracking people though. Also, if with p=0.99 you were at the strip club yesterday evening, then you have something to explain.
        qualeed 1y ago
        >Still great for tracking people though. No, no it isn't. Cameras, license plate readers, air tags, phones, literally just stalking someone, and that sort of thing is great for tracking people. They are easier, vastly less prone to false positives, etc. Your wife/husband isn't going to use a DNA air sniffer to figure out if you were at the strippers. They'll just follow you from a few car lengths back, or ask one of your friends, etc. And if your concern is government, there are way easier, scalable, way more accurate ways to invade your privacy that are already proven to work and have the infrastructure already setup.
        pbhjpbhj 1y ago
        >...way easier, scalable, way more accurate ways to invade your privacy that are already proven to work... That aren't detectable? That you can't easily take precautions against? If sequencing were cheap then it would be a hidden way to check who was at a venue - better than gait (or other biometric) analysis from video. For some uses this seems like a revolutionary monitoring technique.
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    Not just that. I touch a door knob and shed some skin cells. You touch the door knob and pick up some of my skin cells. You touch another door knob I’ve never seen and leave my DNA there.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  > this wont be used in forensics because the odds that it is a false positive is higher than the possibility that it is real. It might see use in forensics to generate leads when investigating something. But agreed that on the whole it doesn't make much sense when compared to cameras and cell phones.
libraryatnight 1y ago
There's always that subset of people (Magicians, crooks, hackers, the terminally curious, etc) who will always do the ridiculous thing nobody thinks anybody would bother doing ;)

by rvnx 1y ago

qualeed 1y ago

>Fingerprints are still used in forensics, because the odds that it is forged are lower than an actual possibility that it is real. >Same for DNA then. There's a world of difference between cloning a fingerprint/planting DNA (in the traditional sense, like fluids), and this technology. The air might carry the particulates to areas never traveled to. That... doesn't happen with fingerprints. Walking around the city with an air filter than traveling to a different city could imply that thousands of people have gone to a city they never went to before. Not happening with fingerprints or traditional DNA. The noise with this tech is way too high to be useful in privacy-damaging ways. It's useless for tracking, useless for court, and more easily game-able than any other biometric by a lot. To put it in your terms, this wont be used in forensics because the odds that it is a false positive is higher than the possibility that it is real.

mc32 1y ago
It can. “Door knobs” can be removed from place A and installed in location B. Or a weapon can also be placed somewhere else…
- qualeed 1y ago
  This requires action by someone else (who also risks leaving behind evidence). The airborne stuff just spreads by itself. To far more places, far quicker, all the time.
  - mc32 1y ago
    Granted; but concentration would go down at something like inverse of some exponential of the distance from source.
    - qualeed 1y ago
      Sure. My point isn't that this isn't a biometric or something. My point is that it is the weakest biometric, full of noise, constantly contaminated, easily forged with no skill set or technology required, with a very high false-positive rate when used for anything privacy-related. There are so many more things (technology, policy, etc.), literally violating people's right to privacy at this very moment, that trying to spin this as a theoretically privacy-damaging technology strikes me as a bit ridiculous.
      - amelius 1y ago
        Still great for tracking people though. Also, if with p=0.99 you were at the strip club yesterday evening, then you have something to explain.
        qualeed 1y ago
        >Still great for tracking people though. No, no it isn't. Cameras, license plate readers, air tags, phones, literally just stalking someone, and that sort of thing is great for tracking people. They are easier, vastly less prone to false positives, etc. Your wife/husband isn't going to use a DNA air sniffer to figure out if you were at the strippers. They'll just follow you from a few car lengths back, or ask one of your friends, etc. And if your concern is government, there are way easier, scalable, way more accurate ways to invade your privacy that are already proven to work and have the infrastructure already setup.
        pbhjpbhj 1y ago
        >...way easier, scalable, way more accurate ways to invade your privacy that are already proven to work... That aren't detectable? That you can't easily take precautions against? If sequencing were cheap then it would be a hidden way to check who was at a venue - better than gait (or other biometric) analysis from video. For some uses this seems like a revolutionary monitoring technique.
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Not just that. I touch a door knob and shed some skin cells. You touch the door knob and pick up some of my skin cells. You touch another door knob I’ve never seen and leave my DNA there.
fc417fc802 1y ago
> this wont be used in forensics because the odds that it is a false positive is higher than the possibility that it is real. It might see use in forensics to generate leads when investigating something. But agreed that on the whole it doesn't make much sense when compared to cameras and cell phones.

libraryatnight 1y ago

There's always that subset of people (Magicians, crooks, hackers, the terminally curious, etc) who will always do the ridiculous thing nobody thinks anybody would bother doing ;)