3 ms·

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

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.
      - amelius 1y ago
        Until you realize that it is a cookie that you can't delete ...
      - vkou 1y ago
        Not to mention that if you are innocent, and the government wants to fuck with you in particular, they won't need to go through this dog and pony show to do so. They'll just send a half-dozen masked men to disappear you and then say to anyone that asks that you were an illegal immigrant with an unpaid parking ticket from 2005. All of this stuff only matters if they are stupid enough to ever let you see the inside of a courtroom. And if you do, you're free to raise the obvious, believable defense that this is the flimsiest, most circumstantial of evidence imaginable. If that's the best evidence they have, you should ask for a bench trial, no judge with an above-room temperature IQ will convict you.
    - coderatlarge 1y ago
      yes extremely low probability doesn’t seem to have stopped law enforcement from pursuing wild goose chases that ensnare innocents. still the value of ambient dna statistics seems worth at least some risk.

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.
    - amelius 1y ago
      Until you realize that it is a cookie that you can't delete ...
    - vkou 1y ago
      Not to mention that if you are innocent, and the government wants to fuck with you in particular, they won't need to go through this dog and pony show to do so. They'll just send a half-dozen masked men to disappear you and then say to anyone that asks that you were an illegal immigrant with an unpaid parking ticket from 2005. All of this stuff only matters if they are stupid enough to ever let you see the inside of a courtroom. And if you do, you're free to raise the obvious, believable defense that this is the flimsiest, most circumstantial of evidence imaginable. If that's the best evidence they have, you should ask for a bench trial, no judge with an above-room temperature IQ will convict you.
  - coderatlarge 1y ago
    yes extremely low probability doesn’t seem to have stopped law enforcement from pursuing wild goose chases that ensnare innocents. still the value of ambient dna statistics seems worth at least some risk.