[andrewstellman]

> And unlike with object recognition that uses cameras, there are no privacy concerns, or need to maintain line-of-sight or good lighting conditions. Radar works through different materials and in the dark as well as the light.

Wait, what? The ability to see through walls and not require line of sight leads to fewer privacy concerns?

Seems to me the privacy concerns are significantly greater for radar than facial recognition. Radar can see places that cameras can't, and while it doesn't capture color information, it does capture detailed 3D data that camera-based systems need to interpolate.

Plus, you know, the whole working through walls thing. Seems like there are at least as many opportunities for abuse as with facial recognition technology.

[Digit-Al]

Firstly, I think (though I could be wrong) that when they talk about privacy concerns they mean the sort of concerns the average person would have about having a camera about... I.e. naked or compromising pictures of themselves getting leaked. I would guess this wouldn't be a problem with radar as it doesn't create images.

Out of curiosity though, not having much knowledge on the subject myself, what would be your security concerns? I would be genuinely interested in knowing what we should be looking out for, privacy wise, with such technology.

[NorthOf33rd]

Don’t confuse privacy with secrecy. I know what you do in the bathroom, but you still close the door. That’s because you want privacy, not secrecy. (From I have nothing to hide. Why should I care about my privacy? : https://medium.com/@FabioAEsteves/i-have-nothing-to-hide-why...)

From a previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14394863

google has no business needing to know where I am or am not. (even though they already do, thanks android/google-fi/chrome-cast/nest/etc etc.)

[rrauenza]

Your Medium link didn't work -- here it is after a google search:

https://medium.com/@FabioAEsteves/i-have-nothing-to-hide-why...

[_8j50]

s/secrecy/confidentiality/

But privacy is relevant here. Easy example: a person whispering,their private conversation no loses it's privacy due to lip movements being read. Two people enter a room and exchange an item for cash,with radar their transaction loses privacy.

[crawfordcomeaux]

Emotional manipulation. Using radar to detect emotional states with 70% accuracy for the general public was achieved 2 years ago by the EQ Radio team at MIT.

They did this by detecting breathing & heart rate at a level of accuracy on par with wired sensors.

This tech works through walls for multiple people at a time, whether they're sitting still or moving.

The world is not emotionally responsible enough to protect against this tech.

http://eqradio.csail.mit.edu

[Evidlo]

Pretty sure their heartbeat and breathing detection was for still bodies only.

I sat through one of their presentations. Definitely cool, but I think a bit overhyped.

[crawfordcomeaux]

So we may have some time to prepare ourselves culturally before the tech is production ready.

[darkpuma]

> "I.e. naked or compromising pictures of themselves getting leaked. I would guess this wouldn't be a problem with radar as it doesn't create images."

Give 'the internet' access to this technology and it will probably only take a week for perverts to weaponize it and fetishize it.

[claudiawerner]

If the technology were fetishised, the tech itself would acquire the status of fetish, which isn't the same as the tech being used to ends of fulfilling a fetish (e.g voyeurism). Some brands arguably promote technology fetishism, but fetishism isn't necessarily sexual, for instance the theory of commodity fetishism.

[darkpuma]

Just to be clear, I'm talking about weird dudes with prurient motivations scanning unconsenting people through the walls of their homes.

[joncrane]

I think in this case you want to replace "fetishize" with "pervert." The verb, not the noun, but the word fits.

[ethbro]

To expound, why people are taking issue with word choice:

fet·ish·ize - verb - Make (something) the object of a sexual fetish.

Ergo, fetishizing the technology prolly isn't what you meant.

[mc32]

I think it's pretty clear that they meant using the technology to fulfil a (sexual) fetish.

Granted, it's not ordinary usage, but in context, I think the meaning was decipherable.

[darkpuma]

s/fetishize the technology/fetishize the product of the technology/

[acct1771]

You mean cops?

[darkpuma]

Including but not limited to cops, sure.

[Retric]

Radar can create images just not true to life color photos. But, leak such a photo of a couple in their bedroom with the blinds closed and you have a problem.

[trumped]

I can see through my blinds with a regular Nikon 300mm zoom lens .... I think because there is enough light going through the bunch of holes?

[Retric]

If you mean from the inside that’s a question of contrast. Look at a tv in a dark room through one side of a t-shirt a few inches from your face and it’s a non issue. Try the same while the side facing you is well lit and it does not work.

Under some situations you can see through thin cloth blinds like this from the outside, but that’s mostly poor blind choices.

[trumped]

It's actually a blind on my backporch similar to this: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71rijF9vnlL... , but it has tiny gaps in-between each slats... I could see through the blind when I was zoomed in to 300mm while being a meter away from it... I could see my neighbor's house and the slats were invisible in the picture. Kind of creepy but I don't have this camera anymore so I cannot do anymore tests...

[kristianov]

Creating images with radar sounds like a fun GAN project. I mean we are already coloring animes [1] and line-arts [2, 3].

[1] http://kvfrans.com/coloring-and-shading-line-art-automatical...

[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03240.pdf

[3] https://github.com/lllyasviel/style2paints

[sh1mmer]

The video linked below literally has an example of this technology recognizing individual credit card even when stacked. While (I assume) the CVV code isn't readable because it's not embossed into the card this still seems like exactly the kind of application that does have privacy implications.

Imagine someone sticking these under the chair in a cafe and skimming the card numbers of everyone who sits down.

[Hupriene]

Yeah, I know I'm not super excited about google gaining the ability to continuously monitor the status of my erectile tissue.

[mhh__]

Useful in a "Hang the DJ" (Black Mirror) type situation maybe...

[wil421]

I was in the pool! I was in the pool!

- George Costanza

[Johnny555]

Can a low power 50Ghz signal penetrate a wall?

[DoctorOetker]

with patience and if designed to detect below the noise floor the power level should not matter