11–20 of 613 posts
Apart from possible health effects, is anyone else concerned about 5G eventually being used for real-time CCTV surveillance networks with centralized facial recognition? The higher bandwidth (up to 10 Gbps) and higher cell density should support quite a few simultaneous video feeds to a central government location.
Apart from possible health effects, is anyone else concerned about 5G eventually being used for real-time CCTV surveillance networks with centralized facial recognition? The higher bandwidth (up to 10 Gbps) and higher cell density should support quite a few simultaneous video feeds to a central government location.
I mean it can't be good all this radiation exposure. As far as I know, people living near large electrical wire high tension poles are at a higher risk of cancer already.
I think so much can already be done with the network bandwidth we already have available. Just using a better protocol on top of HTTP, like everything switching to HTTP2 should be a huge improvement.
How much bandwidth more do we really need, we have hit the limits in terms of video on what is noticeable by the human eye already.
Check at the bottom > ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) > Joel M. Moskowitz
Anything about him worth mentioning? After a quick search online, at first glance, he looks like a reputable researcher. Does he have industry ties that we should be aware of, reputation issues, conflicts of interest, something else?
[0] https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/28/uc-berkeley-psychologis...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's been spreading arguably misleading information about this topic for ages.
> arguably misleading Argue it then. Many readers will have never heard this name.
Check at the bottom > ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) > Joel M. Moskowitz
He is a wifi / cell phone radiation "truther" who thinks the EMF in everyday devices causes cancer
https://www.acsh.org/news/2007/02/16/cell-phone-dangers-stil...
After reading his ideas, I think we should all feel a little lucky that Trump hasn't made hime the head of the FCC.
edit: posting as primary reply, because the point is important, but was downvoted because of how obliquely it was made.
That's a very reasonable general approach. Whether his proposal to stop 5G deployments altogether is proportional to our understanding of the potential risks, if any, is debatable, to say the least.
Apart from possible health effects, is anyone else concerned about 5G eventually being used for real-time CCTV surveillance networks with centralized facial recognition? The higher bandwidth (up to 10 Gbps) and higher cell density should support quite a few simultaneous video feeds to a central government location.
Pretty sure anyone setting up CCTV does so on a wired network. Why the outrage now when your scenario has been possible for years (piping CCTV footage to a central location)?
You are right that the slippery slope has been started already a while ago.
5G is also pretty bad for the environment (netflix, instagram, snapchat are also pretty awful). The amount of energy and resources you need to make all those electronic is gigantic, not to mention the lifespan of a smartphones is so short, smartphones vendors are now trying to add more and more features to make customers replace their phones.
I'm really dying for any electronic brand to release durable hardware, and I'm also eager to have minimal smartphone OS that consume less CPU and memory.
I can't understand that race towards higher bigger everything.