4 ms·

>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'

>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.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        qualeed 1y ago
        >That aren't detectable? Of course. How do you detect or protect against when the FBI/NSA/three-letter-agency has a warrant for your cellphone (or Google, car, local coffee shop cameras, Ring cameras, credit card, etc.) information alongside a gag order? How often do you check your cars undercarriage for GPS monitors? Do you know how many times your car has been imaged by a license plate camera recently? Again, I'm not saying that this technology is useless. It's just a lot worse, on several dimensions, than technology that is already invading your privacy this second. If this technology was seriously beginning to be used to track people, a handful of people can thwart it by carrying around an air filter and shaking it every now and again.
- 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.

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.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        qualeed 1y ago
        >That aren't detectable? Of course. How do you detect or protect against when the FBI/NSA/three-letter-agency has a warrant for your cellphone (or Google, car, local coffee shop cameras, Ring cameras, credit card, etc.) information alongside a gag order? How often do you check your cars undercarriage for GPS monitors? Do you know how many times your car has been imaged by a license plate camera recently? Again, I'm not saying that this technology is useless. It's just a lot worse, on several dimensions, than technology that is already invading your privacy this second. If this technology was seriously beginning to be used to track people, a handful of people can thwart it by carrying around an air filter and shaking it every now and again.
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.