The visual signal there is utterly meaningless for assessing how much is exposed.

For analogy, take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANDU: it was very popular in its day, and its distribution looked good to the naked eye, but plot it in more than two dimensions and you see that it’s actually extremely terrible, failing spectral tests badly.

The information has been captured; the fact that one visualisation of it doesn’t expose that information is irrelevant and gravely misleading (as in: I don’t want someone that hasn’t already realised this working on this kind of stuff, because they’re dangerously ignorant and/or naive; I would rather they stop, and go and learn about the risks in detail before continuing).

> As you can see the radar doesn't reveal too much, while still being able to discern a lot of what is going on in each scene.

No, you can't see that, because it's a video of a specific visualisation of the data from one specific sensor.

If it can see through walls and measure biometrics like heart rate, mass and body type, build a 3d point cloud of limb positions and measure vibration, then it's more privacy invasjve than a camera, not less.

all sensors/technology are invasive to a degree, but I would argue radar fairs well in usefulness and anonymity in comparison to other sensors.

if the data were leaked, would you rather have some of your vitals and point cloud data exposed, or a video of you taking a shower?

I'd rather neither. I've handled the latter by not installing a camera in the shower.