Soooo, you can make a device that records radio waves like a camera records light, sort of. So having these devices out in public is basically the same as having surveillance cameras. With slightly different features of course.
So, how is this any different to having CCTV? Or not being allowed to have CCTV? Whichever applies to your country/area.
I just mean that surveillance via wifi is so much more pernicious because wifi is useful. There is no use for cctv other than surveillance, so it would be relatively much easier to get rid of than wifi surveillance, and we haven’t even been able to get rid of that.
Soooo, you can make a device that records radio waves like a camera records light, sort of. So having these devices out in public is basically the same as having surveillance cameras. With slightly different features of course.
So, how is this any different to having CCTV? Or not being allowed to have CCTV? Whichever applies to your country/area.
You can’t browse piefed using cctv.
Well not with that attitude.
I just mean that surveillance via wifi is so much more pernicious because wifi is useful. There is no use for cctv other than surveillance, so it would be relatively much easier to get rid of than wifi surveillance, and we haven’t even been able to get rid of that.
Yes, WiFi emitting devices are useful, and WiFi using devices are useful, but what about WiFi recording and interpreting devices.
I know, I was just giving comedy a try.