So, just so I'm clear, your concern with 5G is that it has enough bandwidth to support more surveillance? As in, you don't really have problems with 5G, but you have problems with surveillance and think 5G will better facilitate that?
I don't really agree with this argument. As you said, we're still not using 4G fully, so, if they wanted to do surveillance, why wouldn't they have maxed this out yet?
Moreover, there is diminishing returns on surveillance. Even with AI, trying to process it all in any meaningful way is futile if you have so damn much data.
It uses same bands and same power.
Not really true, but your conclusion that it doesn't affect humans any differently than 4G or 3G is true, so I have no reason to correct you.
So, just so I'm clear, your concern with 5G is that it has enough bandwidth to support more surveillance?
Exactly.
As you said, we're still not using 4G fully, so, if they wanted to do surveillance, why wouldn't they have maxed this out yet?
4G is more than enough for internet for users. But it can't handle constant surveillance streams. Not only with bandwidth, but also with a increased number of devices per one base station. With 4G, convetional internet users will notice shrinking bandwith if you began to use it for surveillance. 5G allows more mobile stations and higher bandwidth for additional, hidden from conventional users trafic.
Even with AI, trying to process it all in any meaningful way is futile if you have so damn much data.
There is no such thing as AI, and hardly will in observable future. ANNs is not even close to AI by any mean.
As for data - it is not intended for wide constant processing. It will be stored in archives for some time. When state/corporation need to pursue somebody who is too disturbing them - they will look for that stored data to find how they could effectively pursue that person.
You know, like when SJW want to attack somebody they don't like, they find something in old posts of that person. Since this way of thinking is shared among elites and their puppets, you will find it in more serious things too.
Not really true
I mean a band and power in whole, not exact MHz and dBm. Humans are not so sensitive for RF and it does not matter, is it 960-970MHz band or 965-980MHz band. There is FR2 in 5G, on the K and Ka bands (25-40GHz), but that range widely used by nearly any automatic door, so humans are under that shower for a very long time. Along with that, that Frequency Range 2 shown poor results. This range have very wide bandwith, but very poor outdor stability (rain, leaves, fog is an obstacle for that band), so it was supposed that this range will be used inside buildings and apartments. However real use shown that even a wardrobe in a room become a obstacle for that radiowaves, and there is no any real use for gigabts wide channel inside apartment if that data will eventually be piped into not so wide FR1 conventional bands to reach the base station. There is no any sense to have 10Gbit link from your PC to the door, if you have only 100Mbit coming to the door from your internet provider.
I was mostly referring to machine learning. The semantics of what constitutes "AI" isn't in the scope of this discussion.
4G can't handle constant surveillance streams
Well, it depends what kind of surveillance we're talking about. It absolutely could handle compressed audio from a mic in every room of every household with room to spare. Audio, especially when compressed, takes so little bandwidth, and is still immensely effective for surveillance.
It is not intended for wide constant processing, it will be stored in archives for some time.
How will it be stored? Where will it be stored? That is an astronomical amount of data. We do not have that much storage. Either it's heavily compressed and audio only and we have enough storage space for it (and already have enough bandwidth for it) or it's big enough to require 5G to facilitate, and we don't have enough storage space for it.
It absolutely could handle compressed audio from a mic in every room of every household with room to spare. Audio, especially when compressed, takes so little bandwidth, and is still immensely effective for surveillance.
Yes, but 4G is limited in number of clients for each base station. so, you will have to somehow aggregate them to one data stream and then transmit from dedicated mobile station. With 5G you can have a lot more mobile devices for single base station.
How will it be stored? Where will it be stored? That is an astronomical amount of data. We do not have that much storage.
That is why there was huge plans on all that multilevel SSDs and tiled HDDs along with unwinding 5G plans, that could store much more data than conventional devices. But now it seems they have problems with that tech, it is appeared to be less reliable than supposed.
The RF isn't dangerous to us.
It could have some health issues, but definitely not at the scale of all that 5G bullshit circulating around talking about. At least if you are not really concerned about danger of 2G/3G/4G, there are no reasons to be concerned specifically about 5G health ussies.
Aggregate them to one data stream and then transmit from a dedicated mobile station.
This would be dead easy. And if there is as much incentive to do this as to facilitate rolling out a whole new, borderline intrusive system, there is no reason this wouldn't be done. This would be a far easier option than rolling out 5G, and raise far fewer eyebrows, as it would be completely hidden.
Multilevel SSDs and tiled HDDs
Still not enough data. What you're speculating requires so much data that we could not possibly have with anything close to the current tech.
So, just so I'm clear, your concern with 5G is that it has enough bandwidth to support more surveillance? As in, you don't really have problems with 5G, but you have problems with surveillance and think 5G will better facilitate that?
I don't really agree with this argument. As you said, we're still not using 4G fully, so, if they wanted to do surveillance, why wouldn't they have maxed this out yet?
Moreover, there is diminishing returns on surveillance. Even with AI, trying to process it all in any meaningful way is futile if you have so damn much data.
Not really true, but your conclusion that it doesn't affect humans any differently than 4G or 3G is true, so I have no reason to correct you.
Exactly.
4G is more than enough for internet for users. But it can't handle constant surveillance streams. Not only with bandwidth, but also with a increased number of devices per one base station. With 4G, convetional internet users will notice shrinking bandwith if you began to use it for surveillance. 5G allows more mobile stations and higher bandwidth for additional, hidden from conventional users trafic.
There is no such thing as AI, and hardly will in observable future. ANNs is not even close to AI by any mean.
As for data - it is not intended for wide constant processing. It will be stored in archives for some time. When state/corporation need to pursue somebody who is too disturbing them - they will look for that stored data to find how they could effectively pursue that person.
You know, like when SJW want to attack somebody they don't like, they find something in old posts of that person. Since this way of thinking is shared among elites and their puppets, you will find it in more serious things too.
I mean a band and power in whole, not exact MHz and dBm. Humans are not so sensitive for RF and it does not matter, is it 960-970MHz band or 965-980MHz band. There is FR2 in 5G, on the K and Ka bands (25-40GHz), but that range widely used by nearly any automatic door, so humans are under that shower for a very long time. Along with that, that Frequency Range 2 shown poor results. This range have very wide bandwith, but very poor outdor stability (rain, leaves, fog is an obstacle for that band), so it was supposed that this range will be used inside buildings and apartments. However real use shown that even a wardrobe in a room become a obstacle for that radiowaves, and there is no any real use for gigabts wide channel inside apartment if that data will eventually be piped into not so wide FR1 conventional bands to reach the base station. There is no any sense to have 10Gbit link from your PC to the door, if you have only 100Mbit coming to the door from your internet provider.
I was mostly referring to machine learning. The semantics of what constitutes "AI" isn't in the scope of this discussion.
Well, it depends what kind of surveillance we're talking about. It absolutely could handle compressed audio from a mic in every room of every household with room to spare. Audio, especially when compressed, takes so little bandwidth, and is still immensely effective for surveillance.
How will it be stored? Where will it be stored? That is an astronomical amount of data. We do not have that much storage. Either it's heavily compressed and audio only and we have enough storage space for it (and already have enough bandwidth for it) or it's big enough to require 5G to facilitate, and we don't have enough storage space for it.
Yep, I agree. The RF isn't dangerous to us.
Yes, but 4G is limited in number of clients for each base station. so, you will have to somehow aggregate them to one data stream and then transmit from dedicated mobile station. With 5G you can have a lot more mobile devices for single base station.
That is why there was huge plans on all that multilevel SSDs and tiled HDDs along with unwinding 5G plans, that could store much more data than conventional devices. But now it seems they have problems with that tech, it is appeared to be less reliable than supposed.
It could have some health issues, but definitely not at the scale of all that 5G bullshit circulating around talking about. At least if you are not really concerned about danger of 2G/3G/4G, there are no reasons to be concerned specifically about 5G health ussies.
This would be dead easy. And if there is as much incentive to do this as to facilitate rolling out a whole new, borderline intrusive system, there is no reason this wouldn't be done. This would be a far easier option than rolling out 5G, and raise far fewer eyebrows, as it would be completely hidden.
Still not enough data. What you're speculating requires so much data that we could not possibly have with anything close to the current tech.