KelsonV

@gzrrt @pineapple Yeah - ideally, any voice control processing or recordings should never leave the device it's used on. At worst, the local network.

It's so annoying that the tech for voice recognition became usable before mobile processing power caught up but after mobile bandwidth was enough to offload the processing to someone else's computer.

@V4uban @anji Hubzilla has had nomadic identity for ages

@sohkamyung @ajsadauskas @technology @pluralistic I should give that a try! I use Vespucci for OSM, and it's similar in that it saves photos to its own folder, but it uses the default camera app, so again I have to turn GPS on before a mapping session and off again afterward.

@ajsadauskas @technology @pluralistic (I take a lot of photos for iNaturalist and reference photos for OpenStreetMap editing, so I'm constantly turning GPS on for those, and then back off for personal photos, and sometimes I forget.)

@ajsadauskas @technology @pluralistic A few months ago I dug into ways to work around this with photos that had already been taken with the GPS coordinates. Annoyingly, you mostly have to save the photo, remove the tag, and re-upload it.

https://hyperborea.org/tech-tips/gps-remove/

@ajsadauskas @technology @pluralistic I ran into this a while back.

1. It's not new
2. It's not specific to Pixel photos.

The app and cloud service just don't have support for modifying the EXIF tags, so if *any* camera has added GPS data, you can't use Google Photos to change or remove it.

The estimated location is stored in the Google Photos database and can be modified within the app.

You *can* turn GPS off in the camera app.

@lemming_7765 Similar points to Cory Doctorow's well-known article on the topic, but written in a way you can forward to someone while maintaining a professional image.

@science Oh cool, at least one of the paper's authors is on the fediverse and has posted an infographic on the analysis:

https://sauropods.win/@markwitton/110113855551327781

@petrescatraian @nutomic That still requires your server to send the message to the buggy or malicious server, so Meta or whoever couldn't just set up a random server and ask for the posts, they'd have to have a user following you first, or you'd have to mention someone on that server in your post.

@petrescatraian @nutomic To some extent.

When you mark a message as followers only, your server only sends it to your followers, and only shows it to your followers who are logged in

But if one of your followers is on a malicious (or buggy) server, there's nothing stopping *that* server from doing something it's not supposed to with the data.

IIRC it was CloudFlare's implementation that recently had to fix a bug where followers-only posts were being shown publicly.

@petrescatraian @nutomic I think followers-only posts on Mastodon are closest. Make that your default posting mode and require approval for followers and it's effectively a private profile. (Again, barring malicious ActivityPub servers)