I wish Wifi would be restricted for network use and not (invisible, non-consensual) surveillance or monitoring of any kind. Maybe it's time to start contacting regulators, who probably have no idea about this
I wish Wifi would be restricted for network use and not (invisible, non-consensual) surveillance or monitoring of any kind. Maybe it's time to start contacting regulators, who probably have no idea about this
Unfortunately it's kind of hard to truly restrict its usage. The data transmission and sensing capabilities of WiFi are two sides of the same coin: flashing morse code via a light into a room also makes it possible for anyone with eyes to see what's in the room. WiFi uses non-visible radiation but the same principle applies. What's more, higher transmission rates are made possible by higher frequencies of radiation which have physically more capacity for information density, whether information encoded into the radiation by a special device or encoded into it from from interaction with the environment.
If you want more information about this whole thing as an engineering project, check this comment from a few years back with lots of links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22480444
I guess what the mean is the same way spark gap transmitters are forbidden. Anyone can do it but it's forbidden. Anyone can read the wifi signals but CISCO doesn't have to sell you a dashboard with real time view of your location and everyone walking through it with all the websites they visited since they walked in, last time they were at your location, average time they are there, to communicate to a store in the mall that you're almost in front of it so it sends you a push notification with an ad, etc.
Yeah, I agree.
> Unfortunately it's kind of hard to truly restrict its usage.
Is it? You require any wireless device to have open source firmware and then people can a) inspect what the existing firmware is doing and b) replace it if it's doing anything they don't want it to.
It's a matter of replacing the existing obscurity-focused laws discouraging them from doing this with the security-focused ones that require them to.
The benefits in terms of right-to-repair and ability to patch vulnerabilities in devices the OEM has abandoned redound on top of this.
Totally, I agree that wireless devices doing sensing applications ought to be transparent about that.
That said, wireless devices are basically "light bulbs" in whatever spectrum they operate in. It's very hard to restrict people from driving by with a "camera". I believe these kinds of applications are called "passive" in the literature, and 5G is especially designed with this in mind. WiFi has been known to be good for this for a while.
In order to facilitate more privacy preserving communications that are less sensing friendly we would need highly directed packets using stuff like microwave lasers etc., so as to reduce the ambient radiation.
So there are two issues here. One is, you buy a Wi-Fi device at the store and it spies on you and sends all the data to somebody else's cloud. That one's quite solvable with open source firmware. The other is, they're not using your device, they're using their own.
Restricting someone from having a device that can do that is basically a lost cause. Anyone could make one using a variety of existing commodity equipment or use SDR with multiple antennas. It doesn't matter what some future Wi-Fi device does in that respect because if it's their device they can do whatever they want. If that's your threat model you either need a law that bans them from doing that or a Faraday cage around your building.
It is kind of hard to truly restrict its usage sure but how about we don't create IEEE standards for it.
You would get uncomfortable seeing an IEEE 802.11dp that's able determine if you're wearing an underwear that day, but they are going in that direction.
IEEE 802.11bf is the one you're looking for as far as WiFi goes. 5G and 6G are bigger than 802 but have been quite "transparently" designed with sensing in mind, as in you can read 100s of industry publications about this.
IEEE has a whole working group for standards around this stuff: https://signalprocessingsociety.org/community-involvement/in...
Here's a paper about related standards: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11142711
The paradigm itself goes back decades now. It used to be called "joint communication and sensing" in the 00s, and then it was called "integrated sensing and communications".
I would rather a standard exist so that the layperson can get a sense of what’s possible.
Grounded radiant barrier (matte white vinyl with aluminum on reverse side) in 48" rolls will block wifi and temperature for $0.25 per sq ft.
2023, https://www.policemag.com/technology/article/15541542/first-...
> “Once you place it against the wall, it takes one scan to show you where everything is, then over time anything that moves will pop up.. It can detect someone moving through the room or someone sitting on the couch and breathing. The small movements of breathing are enough for the radar to discriminate between the couch and the person.”
2015, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-...'
> At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside.. The radars were first designed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. They represent the latest example of battlefield technology finding its way home to civilian policing and bringing complex legal questions with it.
The police in Netherlands also operates these from inside vans. Most likely other countries too. They do this most busy weekends in the Dam Square for example. You walk by you get a full body scan to see if you have weapons on you I guess. I hope they like my butt.
Would be a shame if they'd arrest someone for carrying a toy gun or a gun-shaped ball of aluminium foil.
It's built into the WiFi 7 standard.
A lot of spaces you assumed were private are no longer so.