XPost: alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy, misc.phone.mobile   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: unbreakable@secmail.pro   
      
   On 18.01.2020 12:57, KWills Shill #2 wrote:   
   > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it   
   >> will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many   
   >> concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.   
   >>   
   >   
   >      There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.   
   For now, of course.   
   > Surveillance and security concerns are no more or less serious than   
   > they are now.   
   >      Interference might be a valid concern. Though not what you cite   
   > below.   
   >   
   >> Interference:   
   >>   
   >> 5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has   
   >> the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by   
   >> them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more   
   >> with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people   
   >> will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible   
   >> severe weather.   
   >>   
   >   
   >      Phones aren't powerful enough to alter the accuracy of weather   
   > satellite data. Even if they were, satellite receivers will only   
   > accept signals within the bandwidth of the transmission. Something   
   > being close will be disregarded.   
      
   Yes, but millions of those transceivers working at the same spectrum can   
   make a big difference.   
      
   >> Health:   
   >> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no   
   >> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has   
   >> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base   
   >> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those   
   >> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.   
   >>   
   >   
   >      More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.   
   > And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10   
   > meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.   
      
   Yes, but what when you are outside?   
      
   >> Survelliance:   
   >> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential   
   >> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through   
   >> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.   
   >>   
   >   
   >      When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of   
   > privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is   
   > perfectly legal.   
      
   Still scary... Do you want to live in the Communist State?   
      
   >> Security:   
   >> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the   
   >> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that   
   >> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS   
   >> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.   
   >   
   >      It won't be any easier. It will be faster.   
   >      If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to   
   > happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.   
   >   
   Let's imagine you have a server connected to the low-bandwidth Internet   
   connection. It will be, because 5G gives much more bandwidth than   
   previous cellular networks.   
      
   --   
   Tip me: bc1qtwmjzywve5v7z6jzk4dkg7v6masw2erpahsn9f   
      
   bitcoin:bc1qtwmjzywve5v7z6jzk4dkg7v6masw2erpahsn9f   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)