One thing I’m concerned about is recording equipment leaving identifiable information without us knowing about it.

  • e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 个月前

    Given a large enough time frame this can be treated as random noise which is easily filtered out, and this data isn’t necessarily meant to track your supermarket shopping. For example, you can use it to figure out where somebody went who has gone into hiding. They might have cleared out their bank accounts before leaving and with that data you can see where these banknotes are now showing up. Just wait at the store they apparently visit every Tuesday.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      10 个月前

      That’s completely made up. Most bills are given out to other customers once used in a store, the amount of bills that are used once and returned to the bank would be well under 5%.

      Fantastic fabricated story though. Money laundering which has been done for decades would defeat this, it’s a scary story to share that has zero basis on reality.

      • e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 个月前

        Netzpolitik recently did an article about that. I consider them a credible source. How often bills are used before there are returned to the bank heavily depends on the denomination. Larger bills don’t circulate as much and at least in my country most stores return their cash income to the bank on a daily basis. People also tend to spend their money around the area where they live, so even if you couldn’t figure out which exact store a targeted person spends their money at due to circulation (which I doubt), you can still quickly find the general area in which they are staying.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 个月前

          Without some type of visual confirmation, it’s all noise.

          On my way home from work, I grab $600 from the atm, $300 for my wife’s tattoo, $200 for me, and $100 for wife spending money.

          After the appt the tattoos artists wife takes $200 and flys across country that night. I spend my $200 at the peelers, all those go to a dozen different girls and servers. My wife the next day goes shopping at an outlet mall and spends her $100 at 4 stores. The tattoo artist spends his $100 on beer.

          We live on the same block and I pulled the money out across town. Who’s is the original takers purchases….?

          It’s 95% noise, it’s useless unless you’re an investigator and have boots on the ground.

          Again, it’s a fun story to share around the campfire though. Is it possible, yes, can it be done in actual practice, absolutely not. Not without some other information.

          • e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 个月前

            Yes that would destroy some data points but we are talking about a statistical approach here. How often do you give other people cash directly in comparison to spending it at stores. Given enough time and collected information local concentrations will show up. Its surveillance through data analysis with a new veneer.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 个月前

              I ONLY give other people cash, all my other purchases are debit/credit. Like MOST people and stores since Covid

              The only time this works, is if it’s targeted, and that means an investigator is doing it. An automated system wouldn’t know what to do with any of the data. You’re severely overestimating how much people spend cash around them, that’s usually when it’s plastic. People use cash in “sketchier” places.

              Again, zero basis on reality, it gets “destroyed” at every step without some manual intervention.

              • e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 个月前

                No manual intervention needed just track everything and retain the data for a long time. Then you can query the database for all serial numbers your target has ever taken out of an ATM and where they where returned. Circulation will diffuse these results somewhat but that follows a normal distribution. That means it is much more likely that a bill that was spent at a store by your target which is given out again as change, is more likely to be spent at another store near that original store. Aggregate this information over a couple of weeks or months and you will get a heatmap of locations to check out. You can run this operation automatically on all bank accounts if you want. Threshold the heatmap at some significant value and you get a list of stores visited by each person with X% probability.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 个月前

                  Except most people use multiple cards, multiple banks etc. there will absolutely need to some visual verification to be able to ever establish a starting point. It just doesn’t work.

                  It’s a neat proof of concept, but in reality, that would never hold up in court.

                  Give your head a shake, I’ve got a bridge to sell you if you actually believe this is being used or can be used for what you claim.

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 个月前

      I’m a tradesman and get paid in $100 all the time. A guy from the city gave me $100 for a job. My wife, who is a treasurer for Girl Guides, traded her cookie money of $10’s and $20"s for my $100 and deposited it in the bank. Now the FBI can prove that my customer has an unhealthy cookie addiction.