[mk_stjames]

What I'm trying to get at is, even if this type of Wifi surveillance becomes commong and cheap, it still requires access at a low level to the wifi router itself. Which should be hands-off in the first place. It's like having cameras in your house on your local network... if the police could legally hack into your network, they could watch you on the cameras to see if you are committing crimes! But... the point is they shouldn't be able to do that, regardless if you have the cameras or not... the line is drawn at the access.

Same thing there. It shouldn't matter if the tech is possible, produced, cheap, and installed in your home.... it's all moot if the act of the surveillance isn't followed through. We need to work towards ways to prevent the acts themselves, as we simply aren't going to be able to prevent the possible sidechannel attacks from being possible. They are always possible.

[transpute]

> it still requires access at a low level to the wifi router itself

Nope, remote sensing only requires custom radio firmware on the passive surveillance receiver (<$20) that is monitoring Wi-Fi reflections from standard consumer routers which are "near" the target, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34480760

[wizzwizz4]

> Which should be hands-off in the first place.

Wi-Fi access points are often provided by ISPs. ISPs, especially in the US, are not to be trusted; https://security.stackexchange.com/q/71834 is just one example of that.

[vermilingua]

In Australia we have the Assistance and Access amendment to the Telecommunications Act 1997, which allows the government to demand that companies or individuals insert backdoors into their products for use by law enforcement. My WAP/router already tries to update its own firmware, what’s to stop the govt forcing in new firmware with full cooperation from the vendors that enable this passive sensing and allow access to the output?