I’ve heard one criticism of this method which is that mail carriers generally know which houses are vacant, so if they get a suspicious package going to such an address that may actually raise an alarm.
For people ordering drugs for example people will recommend using USPS and a real person’s name/address, since the US postal service requires a warrant before inspecting a package, and the idea is you’re trying to hide in plain sight.
I like the sentiment. The challenge is that those who violate privacy benefit financially, while those who defend against it are just trying to protect themselves. To go on the offensive requires effort and know-how without any corresponding financial or personal benefit. A spite based effort sounds appealing but wouldn’t be sustainable.
This article is a mess. I did find another one that explains a little more here.
Ron Wyden has a really good record on privacy, free speech and digital rights, here’s an unrelated post where the Electronic Frontier Foundation is interviewing him.
I do think with advancement in deep fake video and audio, verifying that you’re talking to who you think you’re talking to is going to become a big challenge. This bill seems to be addressing that - physically going somewhere to verify your Identity. And better for that to be an official government agency than a corporation who will charge who knows what and do who knows what with the data.
Another concept of verifying identity that I haven’t heard much about lately is the web of trust. People can verify other people they know and trust, and then they can vouch for second or third connections who you have not verified yet. Trouble is it can seem convoluted to people who aren’t familiar, and requires adoption from many people before it becomes useful. If the government just says “this is a thing we’re doing” then much more likely to be adopted.
I was using plausible for one of my projects and had a good experience.