The Sapienza computer scientists say Wi-Fi signals offer superior surveillance potential compared to cameras because they’re not affected by light conditions, can penetrate walls and other obstacles, and they’re more privacy-preserving than visual images.

[…] The Rome-based researchers who proposed WhoFi claim their technique makes accurate matches on the public NTU-Fi dataset up to 95.5 percent of the time when the deep neural network uses the transformer encoding architecture.

  • Seleni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    accurate matches up to 95.5% of the time

    and they’re more privacy-preserving than visual images

    Oh fuck all the way off.

    • D_C@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 days ago

      When anyone or anything says that their product works “up to x%” I always presume it doesn’t really work at all.
      Christ, 1% is included in that “up to 95.5%” vague bullshit statement.

      • toynbee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        I hate it when commercials say “up to 100%.” It’s literally a pointless metric; that could mean anything from 0% to 100%, inclusive.

        edit: Closed quote.