It really is… I’ll definitely further explore some of the concepts mentioned in this piece. The GDPR foremost, the role insurance companies play in this, and perhaps common implementations.

Yeah, I’m really wondering how many, of these 'Business 2 Business/Government (B2B/B2G) “solutions”, are hiding in plain sight. Researching ‘smart cities’ led me to tech100.pro, back then listing: videtics.com/en/integrations, showing Genetec as a partner. Ultimately, it’s just a matter of knowing what to search for: it all right there, just not marketing itself to you and I, but to organizations instead.

I’ve sunken way too much time into writing this haha. But I figured it important enough

From left to right, top to bottom: 2 fixed box cameras (most likely 2 generations of ALPRs: an older (larger/yellowed: which they won’t bother removing, and instead keep for redundancy), and a newer (more capable) model), a ‘Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ)’, and what appears to be a radar sensor (for detecting objects: possibly serving as a redundancy, during challenging weather conditions). I suspect the radar sensor got installed first (just for perimeter intrusion detection), they added the old ALPR next (to detect patterns in registered license plates); and the rest as an upgrade (including an increased field of view: through the PTZ’s movable head).

The biggest privacy loophole in WhatsApp is cloud backups. By default, unencrypted updates to the backup, flow through WhatsApp servers in a readable format, to be encrypted on the server-side by the cloud providers (Google or Apple). Even if specifically opting into E2EE backups, the cloud provider still receives the contents in readable format (as it does the encryption of the backup). Even if you personally don’t have this “feature” enabled, the other end might; and your interactions are also included in their backups. On a stock device there’s an entire myriad of other potential vectors; too many to list here.

Yeah, it seems I’ve pulled the trigger a bit soon. I was just about to head to bed when I noticed, which is arguably not the best moment to be posting haha…

I noticed it just before heading to bed, so I’ll take the sound bit of advise, and sleep over it the next time haha.

That’s correct, I’ve also added some ALPRs to OSM; which is why I decided to check it once more. There’s other websites, which also render ALPRs (alongside other surveillance POIs) on a map. However, DeFlock’s is the most clear for ALPRs in specific, at least for what I’ve seen, and also providing information on the subject. I simply noticed it being offline, and figured it might be relevant to the community.

Which in practice will simply drive up the price: like refundable deposits

Deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” tech businesses and nonprofits, including its own

I mean, how else can you deplete a non-profit’s reserves?

E2EE isn’t really relevant, when the “ends” have the functionality, to share data with Meta directly: as “reports”, “customer support”, “assistance” (Meta AI); where a UI element is the separation.

Edit: it turns out cloud backups aren’t E2E encrypted by default… meaning: any backup data, which passes through Meta’s servers, to the cloud providers (like iCloud or Google Account), is unobscured to Meta; unless E2EE is explicitly enabled. And even then, WhatsApp’s privacy policy states: “if you use a data backup service integrated with our Services (like iCloud or Google Account), they will receive information you share with them, such as your WhatsApp messages.” So the encryption happens on the server side, meaning: Apple and Google still have full access to the content. It doesn’t matter if you, personally, refuse to use the “feature”: if the other end does, your interactions will be included in their backups.

Cross-posting my comment from the cross-posted post

Yeah, I guess if you want users to keep sharing “confessions, [] difficult debates, or silly inside jokes” through a platform you’ve acquired, E2EE might give the WhatsApp user the false sense of privacy required.

One would almost start to think the lawyers were out for the settlement money…

E2EE isn’t really relevant, when the “ends” have the functionality, to share data with Meta directly: as “reports”, “customer support”, “assistance” (Meta AI); where a UI element is the separation.

Edit: it turns out cloud backups aren’t E2E encrypted by default… meaning: any backup data, which passes through Meta’s servers, to the cloud providers (like iCloud or Google Account), is unobscured to Meta; unless E2EE is explicitly enabled. And even then, WhatsApp’s privacy policy states: “if you use a data backup service integrated with our Services (like iCloud or Google Account), they will receive information you share with them, such as your WhatsApp messages.” So the encryption happens on the server side, meaning: Apple and Google still have full access to the content. It doesn’t matter if you, personally, refuse to use the “feature”: if the other end does, your interactions will be included in their backups.

I still prefer mobile users adding features, even if they are of an unusual object type; effectively being another type of fixme to desktop users. But instead of another desktop user integrating these elements, I rather have mobile users on the desktop as well; as to integrate their mobile changes when at home. If you’re sightseeing, these applications are very helpful, for creating/editing POIs and effectively sketching out non-POI features; but the latter does require some work to integrate them.

Quoting another comment of mine. Your use of the tool is something I’m advocating for, really; I recognize it’s usefulness, but am not treating it as a substitute for desktop editors.

There’s quite some changes by First World contributors in Africa, primarily from mapping events. Perhaps they could also play a role in integrating POI and line elements (which are traditionally areas); or maybe allow a more POI- and line-based standard in Africa, not requiring areas for such objects. Or an intuitive UI, supporting editing of geometries, could be added; despite gluing and complicated relationships, etc. I would love to be proven wrong in my skepticism.

Ah okay, now I get it; I wasn’t familiar with that. Satelliet Data Portaal provides both partial (more recent), and full mosaics (less recent) WMTS from multiple sources (Pleiades-NEO or SuperView-NEO); which might complicate things (having to load the right imagery, based on the location being edited for the partial captures; and selecting the right source). The resolution, especially from the partial captures, but also the mosaics, doesn’t really hold up to something like PDOK or Esri. So perhaps this source being the default might not desirable, but having it as an option (especially the mosaic) would be neat.

OSM is a community project, someone have to the the PR, It won’t show up automagically without human intervention.

Is this referring to the “mass imports” part, you would argue are done in batches by many contributors? If so, then yes, mass import might give the wrong idea, I agree. But even if imported by many over time, the result is still a mass import from these open databases (minus a few addresses maybe, drawn in by hand; or roads not yet aligned with BGT, in case of The Netherlands).

Are you sure its license is compatible? E.g. The website says I can’t view it because I’m not in the Netherlands. There are a lot of frequent editors from there, it’s strange they haven’t added it yet.

I can’t find the forum post regarding this, but I’m quite sure the conclusion was it being compatible; despite viewing being restricted to Dutch citizens (because it’s a service provided by The Netherlands). It’s a quite common source here, especially for recent changes (which other imagery just doesn’t provide). And they are providing WMTS directly, so if they wanted to restrict usage for georeferencing, I don’t understand why they’d do that.

Editing geometries is hard enough as it is on the desktop (especially with glued points), so I can’t imagine making such changes on the mobile. I think it’s best to not allow editing geometries, and to leave such changes to devices better suited for the task.

Oh, you can add new things, that’s perfectly fine. I still prefer mobile users adding features, even if they are of an unusual object type; effectively being another type of fixme to desktop users. But instead of another desktop user integrating these elements, I rather have mobile users on the desktop as well; as to integrate their mobile changes when at home. If you’re sightseeing, these applications are very helpful, for creating/editing POIs and effectively sketching out non-POI features; but the latter does require some work to integrate them.