|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 20, 2021 17:16:54 GMT
The thing is, with the scheme I described the trackers don't have to be individual-specific, they just need unique identifiers. Someone walks by a scanner which picks up five of the scanners that were known to be in Jack yesterday, plus two new scanners not currently assigned to anyone - so it must be Jack, and the new scanners are assigned to him.
Slight confusion possible if two (or more) people walk by a scanner while very close together. The computers can identify who they are via previously-known trackers, but maybe can't determine which of the new trackers is in each of them. The computers can just ignore the new trackers for now, expecting that they'll go by another scanner soon, or may have provisions for tentative and multiple assignments.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 20, 2021 21:23:47 GMT
The thing is, with the scheme I described the trackers don't have to be individual-specific, they just need unique identifiers. Someone walks by a scanner which picks up five of the scanners that were known to be in Jack yesterday, plus two new scanners not currently assigned to anyone - so it must be Jack, and the new scanners are assigned to him. Slight confusion possible if two (or more) people walk by a scanner while very close together. The computers can identify who they are via previously-known trackers, but maybe can't determine which of the new trackers is in each of them. The computers can just ignore the new trackers for now, expecting that they'll go by another scanner soon, or may have provisions for tentative and multiple assignments. Why not have the old trackers tell the new trackers which person they have attached to? |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 20, 2021 21:49:55 GMT
That would require intelligence in the trackers. They can't just be really small RFID tags, they have to have some processing power and a source of energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 21, 2021 6:05:52 GMT
That would require intelligence in the trackers. They can't just be really small RFID tags, they have to have some processing power and a source of energy. Not necessarily, we've got a small population in the Court so they don't need to hold/send a lot of data and they can borrow some radiation from other sources. (see below) btw until just now I was unable to see this post, not sure why. The thing is, with the scheme I described the trackers don't have to be individual-specific, they just need unique identifiers. Someone walks by a scanner which picks up five of the scanners that were known to be in Jack yesterday, plus two new scanners not currently assigned to anyone - so it must be Jack, and the new scanners are assigned to him. Slight confusion possible if two (or more) people walk by a scanner while very close together. The computers can identify who they are via previously-known trackers, but maybe can't determine which of the new trackers is in each of them. The computers can just ignore the new trackers for now, expecting that they'll go by another scanner soon, or may have provisions for tentative and multiple assignments. Why not have the old trackers tell the new trackers which person they have attached to? That could work if the tags circulate in the blood instead of just passing through (heh). You could feed someone the tags in a controlled setting and then give them an initial microburst when they first arrive at the Court or return after a long absence, which would set the tags identifier. Assuming they don't radiate they'd need energy from something else (like how the Tocs recharge) to pass the code on to blank tags, which should be easy. Set tag comes into proximity with a blank tag plus enough radiation to make it happen, and the blank tag is blank no more. Unique identifiers would have a lot of upsides as far as tracking and ease of use of features but I think the Court would be unlikely to use such a system. Once someone knows the frequency they can capture anyone's signal just by proximity, and by virtue of the size of the Court it would be easy to gain access to some of the static surveillance equipment. No unique identifier means that the tags can be cheap reflectors that stay in the digestive tract plus the people don't have to go through an initial feeding/blast so they won't know they're being tracked unless they find out some other way. Why bother with unique identifiers anyway when people willingly walk around with their devices? |
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Apr 21, 2021 6:30:32 GMT
You know, seeing the response to my innocuous observation about the known food-tracking thing, I think I suddenly understand why Tom avoids plots that go into technical detail.
I understand the complexity, but SpiderJack learned a lot of stuff on the school network that he hacked into, most of which we already knew to be true (Renard's real name, Paz talking to animals, etc.). He specifically talked about these little.. things in the food that the court uses to track movement and vital statistics and all that. And indeed, he stopped eating, and they couldn't find him.
Soon after, Jones states that the court tracks people through their food when Annie asks how they track people, without Annie mentioning Jack had said that.
Occam's razor, anyone?
Impossible to implement in the real world or not, it really seems like we're meant to believe that this is how they do it in the Court. That doesn't mean just anyone can access it of course - this seems likely to be a Shadow Men thing. They have the best toys! Also, they were the ones trying to track down SpiderJack, and thus were the ones he was specifically trying to hide from.
Like this guy said, hey, I just know what happened, not how it happened.  |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 21, 2021 7:17:40 GMT
You know, seeing the response to my innocuous observation about the known food-tracking thing, I think I suddenly understand why Tom avoids plots that go into technical detail. Internet. Impossible to implement in the real world or not, it really seems like we're meant to believe that this is how they do it in the Court. I didn't say can't; I meant shouldn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by madjack on Apr 21, 2021 7:20:50 GMT
You know, seeing the response to my innocuous observation about the known food-tracking thing, I think I suddenly understand why Tom avoids plots that go into technical detail. Internet. " Quartz alternator." |
|
