[woodrowbarlow]

yeah there's some truth here. from what i understand, the radios that give the best "imaging" are also the least resilient for data -- you need basically line-of-sight. and 5G did have some optional ULF "add-ons" that basically never got used because the tradeoffs for speed to signal integrity were poor.

it won't start as a mass deployment -- just focused on stadiums, airports, government buildings, etc.; maybe some authoritarian states will attempt mass deployments, but the cost will be an obstacle. also, my read is that western telcos aren't interested in owning a surveillance tool because they know their governments won't let them keep it.

hopefully 6G won't be the end of physical privacy. but it will prototype the end of physical privacy -- and i think it will end up being just a matter of time from that point on, unfortunately.

[protocolture]

I just dont see the benefit, unless you are installing a 6G device in every room of your house.

Which is probably the target case here. 4G had light adoption by smaller telcos, 5G has some self installable repeaters, but most of the plans for 5G to spread to self installed / class license hardware were all vapourware. 6G might have some backing pushing them into trying to find more ways to sell 6G devices, and having put up a bunch of 6G certified (but class license only) devices in your home, it would be cool if you could see some biometrics, and hook the system into home automation for surveillance and determining whether the lights go on.

But without that in home capability, and massive spread of deployed devices I just dont see the surveillance utility. Especially if your town has lots of awnings and trees.