In case anyone else out there is unaware, the “paid” tier for Osmand is unlockable for free to OSM contributors, meaning if you make a habit of contributing edits to OSM, then all you’d have to do is link to your OSM account within Osmand settings. Not to dissuade anyone from contributing financially, just sayin’ b/c I think that is a nice little perk for editors from the Osmand team.

I personally prefer CoMaps (forked from Organic Maps), the UI is a little more intuitive to me than Osmand.

Can someone help me understand the likely outcome in countries that implement chat control? Will those governments force Google and Apple to remove apps that do not comply (e.g. Signal) from their official app stores? Will those governments somehow detect users who find workarounds and go after them? I figure most people in those countries will shrug their shoulders and move on with their lives, but how will this impact citizens who do not wish to comply?

Can you please share a specific example? I poked around in the settings for Fennec browser and could not find anything about switching profiles.

This has been my experience so far. When I posted this question, I was hoping there was an alternative or equivalent feature for mobile that I just didn’t know about.

I’d think A would work (pointing your custom domain to Anonaddy and linking the specific alias to their gmail as the recipient for that alias). This can be done w/ Anonaddy’s Lite Plan, which is $1/month and allows up to 5 recipients.

I see the problem now; however, if the aliasing tool has regex matching (and the matching pattern is hard to guess), then I believe that solves the problem of keeping spam out while enabling automatic creation, would you agree?

if you use catchall and later run into spam issues, it gets much harder to get rid of it, as you cannot turn off the catchall if you don’t even have a list of aliases to still let through.

If the forwarding/aliasing service automatically creates an alias when the first email is received, then that skirts this problem, right?

I forward those emails to an address which is random. For example: udhxhdjeiwk@example.com.

Can you elaborate on the benefit of using a random string for your secret/true inbox? Is it so that if it’s ever compromised you can just spin up a new random string as your new inbox, point all your aliases to the new one, and burn the old one?

Each alias looks like this: company_name-[eight random character/numbers]@example.com.

Same question, how do the random characters after the company name benefit you? Is it so that if you want (or need) to continue using that particular service after a data leak, then at least you can update your profile to company_name-[different set of random characters]?

This is very helpful - thanks a lot!

Makes sense. Follow-up question: Is there any particular reason why you use the email+hfu2sb5d@example.com or email+ebay@example.com as opposed to just hfu2sb5d@example.com or ebay@example.com?

If I understand correctly, the plus sign helps you see which organization has compromised your info, but the drawback of the plus sign is that a savvy spammer can figure out what your true email address is (the part before the plus sign), whereas aliases such as hfu2sb5d@example.com or ebay@example.com conceal your true email address.

Am I thinking about this correctly?

ETA I’ve also encountered sites where a plus sign in the email address is disallowed, which is another downside of the plus sign approach.

Okay, I think I’m following, thanks for the detailed explanation.

mail-eage

Nice!

Gotcha, so then without a catch-all, is it still possible to make up something on the fly or will I need to predetermine my aliases before I give them out? I guess it’s kinda rare, but I’m thinking about the odd circumstance where I need to come up with something on the spot and I’m away from my computer.

I’ve seen this approach mentioned in other threads. Where does one configure catch-all, is that in the settings for the mail provider or the domain registrar?

Going forward, this approach checks out, but I’m also looking to unfuck my existing accounts. Beginning to think a custom domain is the way to achieve that.

I had not thought of this. Thanks for the idea.

Good to know there are models compatible with Home Assistant. Thanks for the info.

Thanks for the idea. In your case, do you still need a phone app to program the various PINs or are they all programmable “on board?”

Oh, I see. I must’ve misread a tutorial at some point then. I did not realize one could install an app directly into profile #2, I thought root had all the apps and then specific apps had to be pushed to the other profiles. Thanks for clarifying that.

Got that part, but what throws me is, in order to install a Google app on that secondary “google” profile, don’t you have to first install the Google app on the main profile so that you can then push it to the secondary profile?

What does maintaining a separate profile for Google stuff buy you? I’m familiar with GrapheneOS, but haven’t internalized the separate profile thing yet.

I do kind of relish the images, though. Picture’s worth a thousand words and all. But it’s great to have that choice.

Yes and no. Sometimes a company or organization can serve as a force for good. That said, absolutely a double edged sword. It’s not fair to expect private businesses and organizations to be held hostage by scummy legislators. At the end of the day, no one is entitled to a business’s or organization’s services, so… Don’t want to chase businesses and organizations away? Don’t pass shitty legislation.

Excerpt from the article:

The researchers… call their approach “WhoFi”, as described in a preprint paper titled, “WhoFi: Deep Person Re-Identification via Wi-Fi Channel Signal Encoding.”

Who are you, really?

Re-identification, the researchers explain, is a common challenge in video surveillance. It’s not always clear when a subject captured on video is the same person recorded at another time and/or place.

Re-identification doesn’t necessarily reveal a person’s identity. Instead, it is just an assertion that the same surveilled subject appears in different settings. In video surveillance, this might be done by matching the subject’s clothes or other distinct features in different recordings. But that’s not always possible.

The author asserts that re-identification doesn’t necessarily reveal a person’s identity, although I suppose this is similar to how a single fingerprint or DNA sample doesn’t necessarily reveal a person’s identity, right up until somebody can connect your fingerprint to your identity, say, by correlating your location with other tracking methods or something.

Profit

Were the cans and string ethically sourced, though?