41 ms·

>...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 p

>...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.