Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

joshhorne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 192 posts

Re: mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

#11

Post by hornej »

idontwantthis wrote: post #3

> Because mmWave radar doesn’t process visual light, what it sees is not personally identifiable. This makes it an ideal choice for monitoring where a camera would not be appropriate. Is 5mm resolution not enough to identify a face? What’s the difference between a 3d model of a person constructed from high res radar and a black and white photo? The radar sounds even more identifiable. Edit: Couldn’t you construct a m…

A couple examples to show what the mmWave data looks (bathroom, living room, etc)

Intelligent fall detection using TI mmWave radar sensors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsIo_HIk4GY&t=93s

3D Occupancy Sensing For Home and Office https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EDhJQbLNyo&t=83s

As you can see the radar doesn't reveal too much, while still being able to discern a lot of what is going on in each scene.

Re: mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

#12

Post by hornej »

ipsin wrote: post #8

So far these applications seem pretty innocuous, but for things like gesture & other control systems, can mmWave be jammed or spoofed?

there is a risk of being jammed or spoofed which is why there has been a bunch of research done in the automotive industry. https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/ABSTRACTS/SecurityOver...

But I don't think there is much risk in gesture control.

Re: mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

#15

Post by chrismorgan »

A technical error in one of the diagrams: Hall effect sensors are not binary, but one-dimensional, and are used so; their output voltage is directly proportional to the magnetic field strength. As for PIR sensors, fundamentally they’re certainly not binary, but I have no idea if they perhaps expose only a binary signal. A better example of a binary sensor might be an on/off switch.

Re: mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

#16

Post by hornej »

chrismorgan wrote: post #15

A technical error in one of the diagrams: Hall effect sensors are not binary, but one-dimensional, and are used so; their output voltage is directly proportional to the magnetic field strength. As for PIR sensors, fundamentally they’re certainly not binary, but I have no idea if they perhaps expose only a binary signal. A better example of a binary sensor might be an on/off switch.

thats a good point about the hall sensors. i'll update that. PIR sensors also output an analog signal, but in practice they are binary.

Re: mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

#17

Post by jacknews »

"The promise of ambient computing is that technology gets out of the way while becoming more helpful at accomplishing what we want. It anticipates our needs by understanding the context of our environment and situation. It serves us, rather than us serving it. "

This is the optimistic case. Perhaps more likely is that 'ambient' computing will smother us in surveillance, ads, 'nudges', restrictions (you seem tired or drunk, you may not drive), etc.

Re: mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

#18

Post by Schroedingersat »

hornej wrote: post #11
idontwantthis wrote: post #3

> Because mmWave radar doesn’t process visual light, what it sees is not personally identifiable. This makes it an ideal choice for monitoring where a camera would not be appropriate. Is 5mm resolution not enough to identify a face? What’s the difference between a 3d model of a person constructed from high res radar and a black and white photo? The radar sounds even more identifiable. Edit: Couldn’t you construct a m…

A couple examples to show what the mmWave data looks (bathroom, living room, etc) Intelligent fall detection using TI mmWave radar sensors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsIo_HIk4GY&t=93s 3D Occupancy Sensing For Home and Office https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EDhJQbLNyo&t=83s As you can see the radar doesn't reveal too much, while still being able to discern a lot of what is going on in each scene.

> As you can see the radar doesn't reveal too much, while still being able to discern a lot of what is going on in each scene.

No, you can't see that, because it's a video of a specific visualisation of the data from one specific sensor.

If it can see through walls and measure biometrics like heart rate, mass and body type, build a 3d point cloud of limb positions and measure vibration, then it's more privacy invasjve than a camera, not less.

Re: mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

#19

Post by jasondclinton »

I've been waiting for someone to finally make a consumer stud finder that works and this just might finally happen after this deregulation of the spectrum.

The construction industry would hand over wheelbarrows full of money for a BLE phone-paired puck that located studs and pipes behind drywall. Someone could even sell a "pro" version that combined the data from multiple pucks to render a 3D point cloud of the inside of the wall on the user's phone.

Re: mmWave radar, you won't see it coming

#20

Post by chrismorgan »

hornej wrote: post #11
idontwantthis wrote: post #3

> Because mmWave radar doesn’t process visual light, what it sees is not personally identifiable. This makes it an ideal choice for monitoring where a camera would not be appropriate. Is 5mm resolution not enough to identify a face? What’s the difference between a 3d model of a person constructed from high res radar and a black and white photo? The radar sounds even more identifiable. Edit: Couldn’t you construct a m…

A couple examples to show what the mmWave data looks (bathroom, living room, etc) Intelligent fall detection using TI mmWave radar sensors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsIo_HIk4GY&t=93s 3D Occupancy Sensing For Home and Office https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EDhJQbLNyo&t=83s As you can see the radar doesn't reveal too much, while still being able to discern a lot of what is going on in each scene.

The visual signal there is utterly meaningless for assessing how much is exposed.

For analogy, take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANDU: it was very popular in its day, and its distribution looked good to the naked eye, but plot it in more than two dimensions and you see that it’s actually extremely terrible, failing spectral tests badly.

The information has been captured; the fact that one visualisation of it doesn’t expose that information is irrelevant and gravely misleading (as in: I don’t want someone that hasn’t already realised this working on this kind of stuff, because they’re dangerously ignorant and/or naive; I would rather they stop, and go and learn about the risks in detail before continuing).

Post reply on HN