There is the concept of "byte" when talking about a string of characters which make up a password, though, which is why I said bytes. But yes, I am aware, and your statement just further supports my point.
Not necessarily. A person could remember a password that contains name of their loved one differently in their brain than some arbitrary string of letters and numbers. Those letters and numbers can each be "encoded" differently in their brain - e.g. maybe the letter 'S' is linked in their brain to snakes because it kind of looks like one. Or any kind of weird connections of certain parts of the password to a smell they smelled twenty years ago. This would all deeply affect how the actual string of character is actually "stored" in the brain.
Yes, after you'd extract the password from their brain, you would then convert it to a string of bytes and store it on your digital storage device, but you were talking about accessing data in a human brain.
The point is, human brain is weird when looked at from point of view of data storage. :)
>[...] but you were talking about accessing data in a human brain.
No, I wasn't. I used bytes as a unit of measurement of data. I guess if I said "characters" instead of "bytes" people would stop trying to explain this to me. Although I sort of doubt that, because I said "yes, I know" and then get another paragraph explaining the same thing to me.
No, you're moving the goalposts. You were specifically talking saying "to wirelessly read a few specific bytes of data from the brain of an unknowing person".
You do not read bytes of data from the brain, because there are no bytes in the brain. You read information (in whatever weird form and format the brain has it), and in order to store it in whatever digital storage device you have, only then convert it into bytes and store those bytes.
It's like if you were saying "I read three words of English text from this book written in Chinese".
But yeah, at this point, we're arguing pure semantics. :)
