Judging by the video they achieve 83% success rate with a pool of 8 people in what looks like perfect conditions (only one person, no perturbation of any kind etc...). The video also states, rather suspiciously IMO, that "This scene on the other side is shown solely for presentation and was not used for identification". Why not show the actual footage of the experiment?
>The lab has tested their new technology on 1,488 WiFi-video pairs, drawn from a pool of eight people, and in three different behind-wall areas, and achieved an overall accuracy of 84% in correctly identifying the person behind the wall.
What does it mean exactly? They only need one short video and one short wifi capture to get 84% success rate? That's what the video seems to imply but I find that very hard to believe. Or maybe it's just because it's fairly easy to distinguish among 8 people (especially if they have significantly different body types) and it won't work quite as well at large. I can identify my girlfriend's footsteps in the staircase with remarkable accuracy but I can guarantee you that it won't scale to the general population.
Maybe it works better than I give it credit for but they need to bring up better evidence IMO.
>The lab has tested their new technology on 1,488 WiFi-video pairs, drawn from a pool of eight people, and in three different behind-wall areas, and achieved an overall accuracy of 84% in correctly identifying the person behind the wall.
What does it mean exactly? They only need one short video and one short wifi capture to get 84% success rate? That's what the video seems to imply but I find that very hard to believe. Or maybe it's just because it's fairly easy to distinguish among 8 people (especially if they have significantly different body types) and it won't work quite as well at large. I can identify my girlfriend's footsteps in the staircase with remarkable accuracy but I can guarantee you that it won't scale to the general population.
Maybe it works better than I give it credit for but they need to bring up better evidence IMO.