Burner Gmails

Back on Android Jellybean (maybe KitKat) you were required to sign up with a Gmail account to use the device, like any other stock android device. However if you did not have an existing Gmail account you could follow the prompts to create one through the startup. This legacy processe did not require a mobile number or recovery email like today's signup process. I'm not sure if this still works and can't test it, as my devices have died any I have no idea how to emulate it. If any other lainons have any legacy devices give it a shot.

>>32378 It's google's backend servers that decide what you need to sign up, not Android. It sounds like they just happened to have a more relaxed policy around the time you were using Jellybean.

>>32379 Sorry, Unclear; What I'm saying is you can create a gmail account without phone number and backup email because of the legacy operating system; the servers don't need that info to create an account, and the operating system is a means to do that.

>>32380 >computers are magic i don't understand how the internet works People should have to sit a basic computing exam before being allowed to post on /tech/ boards.

>>32383 OP here. I understand how a computers and networks work. I just performed this with a legacy android 4.4.2 device, route the connection through a proxy, tunnel or even tor (you can use an APK to do this, I'm sure there is one for it.) and you can anonymize the source of the new google account. The whole point of this thread is because you can't create new google accounts without a mobile number and recovery address.

>>32384 >you don't need a phone number >if you sign up on a phone >>32383 make that an IQ test as well.

>use old Android version >didn't use versions that don't need a Gmail account is this what passes for a thread now? Sad.

OP here, This my first thread, so excuse the soykaf quality, not sure how to do these. I just thought it's interesting and might be useful for someone out there. >>32387 The device was not a Phone, it was an android tablet. (yes these exist who would have thought it) >>32386 The whole point is to create a gmail account. Learn to read. Why would you do this? If you want to create a burner gmail for sites that only accept restricted domains. It's not tied to you by a phone number or alternate email. All the functionality of google services without strings attached as long as you use some masking services to create and access the account and related services.

>>32388 >The device was not a Phone, it was an android tablet. (yes these exist who would have thought it) If there's no GPS or baseband then that might be quite good. How do you know it's going through Tor/VPN? Is that set on the device or the router side? Seems to me it's probably still leaking your IP address to google if a direct internet connection is at all available.

Ive managed to get a hold of a working x86 4.0 vm, but i cant seem to get an internet connection to work. Ive tried both qemu (especially since for 9.0 it seems to work) and virtualbox but no luck. Any help?

>This legacy processe did not require a mobile number or recovery email like today's signup process. As of a year ago, this still works. (Tested in lineageos with the google apps nano package flashed.) I don't even know if I'd call it a legacy process. I think the point is so that if you buy a new android tablet it is still usable even if you don't have a phone number available (maybe you are old and only have a landline and it is tied up with your spouse's google account, or you bought a tablet for your kid and they don't have a cell phone yet). You can even do the same thing with multiple android user accounts on the same phone, if you can tolerate the privacy implications. >>32379 >>32383 >>32386 >>32387 If you're going to be an asshole at least take a moment to understand what's being asked. OP is trying to make a gmail account without giving google a phone number. This isn't possible if you try to do it in a web browser, but there is a fairly well known workaround using the initial device setup thing in android.

>>32425 >Tested in lineageos with the google apps nano package flashed. BTW I didn't flash an old version or anything. I think this was with android 8 and whatever version of gapps was current at the time.

>>32425 OP here I didn't know it was fairly well known at all. My apologies, I should have done research before opening a thread. Wasn't sure with modern devices (4.4 and up) because I never tried, it's just something I knew when I used legacy devices. Thank you for understanding though.

>>32378 >Back on Android Jellybean (maybe KitKat) you were required to sign up with a Gmail account to use the device, like any other stock android device. However if you did not have an existing Gmail account you could follow the prompts to create one through the startup. This legacy processe did not require a mobile number or recovery email like today's signup process. You are very correct my good Lain. >4.4.4 Yes you can but I don't think it still works at this point in time. It used to be possible to VM android x86 4.4.4 or 4.2 and register a Gmail without a phone number. I tried it when some lainon mentioned it and it worked but right now it probably doesn't anymore but its still to early to confirm. I've no use for a 'flagged' Gmail anyway and using it would just enable the permanent history thing. If you do this on 5.0 / Lollipop and above, it won't work / require phone number. >>32440 Try android x86 right now. I think there was a G-apps build. >>32386 This is true to some email providers but also the opposite when they think you're using a phone user agent or logged in with a phone, they will ask for a phone number even when the desktop site don't or you previously signed up for an account without phone number. >>32384 Your account would be flagged for using proxies, unless otherwise you're using a residential one. >>32426 The point of OP is that the phone isn't tied to anything. Even if you used a lineageOS, the nano package would know your device serial number, IMEI and other forms of identifiers that still haven't given any form of permission up till now.

>>32425 >If you're going to be an asshole at least take a moment to understand what's being asked. There were a lot of holes in OP's early posts and we've arguably shared much more knowledge at this point than if everyone just gave asspats and didn't ask difficult questions. >>32442 >The point of OP is that the phone isn't tied to anything. Even if you used a lineageOS, the nano package would know your device serial number, IMEI and other forms of identifiers that still haven't given any form of permission up till now. You can also just sign up normally and buy a 99c SIM card to receive the confirmation message. If the phone number is the only problem you're trying to solve.

>>32442 >The point of OP is that the phone isn't tied to anything So run android in a VM. I did it on a real phone running lineage but you obviously don't have to. >If you do this on 5.0 / Lollipop and above, it won't work This is not universally true. As I said, I created a google account on (I think) android 8 or 9 without providing a phone number. Are you saying it just doesn't work in android x86, or in a VM? >Your account would be flagged for using proxies What does being "flagged for using proxies" entail? I've had a google account locked before, presumably because I provided no information on signup and did something to trip the spam filter, but I just put in a support ticket and it was fixed. >>32449 >didn't ask difficult questions lmao is that what you thought you were doing? >>32379 is completely irrelevant and obvious, and the other replies were just unwarrented insults based on your own misunderstanding.

Oh, I should also mention: asking for 2fa is *not* the same thing as asking for a phone number. Google may want/require you to set up the former in some situations (I honestly don't remember) but, despite the fact that it specifically says to use "google authenticator", you can use any TOTP/HOTP software/app. There's even a CLI solution you can run on desktop. In case you're unfamiliar with how TOTP/HOTP works: it's completely offline, so there's no privacy compromise in using it. The worst you're doing is cryptographically tying the account to a key you control, so maybe if LE seized your devices they could prove you control the account. But that isn't relevant to most threat models.

I just did this a month ago to make a new burner gmail. Used an old phone laying around and went to a public place. Didn't ask for a number.

>>32453 >As I said, I created a google account on (I think) android 8 or 9 without providing a phone number. On a used phone? They already have enough information to even ask for a "phone number" or the phone number was accessible by the "app" through a special API. >Your account would be flagged for using proxies During sign up, if someone already used the same proxy to sign up. >This is not universally true. As I said, I created a google account on (I think) android 8 or 9 without providing a phone number. Are you saying it just doesn't work in android x86, or in a VM? Yes you can at any time of the day create a google account over the browser or whatever but it's limited to one new account per IP otherwise it would trigger all kinds of soykaf on google like having infinite captcha, or having your accounts require a phone number. What I'm saying is the startup sequence of a newly factory reset kitkat or jellybean phone/VM would spawn up a sign up form that goes like this even without a phone number: >do you want a new google account? <proceed> <skip> >desired email [ ] >password [ ] >you can rinse and repeat (factory reset) >>32458 This is true but this can also be done with a VM but probably not anymore. The problem is when you have used the phone before which means if you had an updated google framework, it would have recorded you 'legally' at some point, and also if it had an account before, anything that could be collected would already in the cloud so signing up a new one will just be metadata-linked to the previous account. OP wants something tied to nothing.

>>32518 OP here let's wrap up what I was trying to say in a neat little Q&A Q: What is the point of this? A: To create an anonymized gmail account using legacy android as android 5.0+ and browser required 2FA with a phone number to create a new one. Q: How do I do this? A: Using a legacy android device with the kitkat or jellybean OS follow these steps; 1. Factory reset the device if you haven't. 2. Make sure you have an internet connection (if you can, use a proxy, vpn or even tor.) 3. Settings -> Accounts -> Create new -> Google 4. Follow the prompts. 5. You have a mostly anonymous google account. If you're more experienced you could spoof the mac address and hardware addresses of the device itself. 6. You can create multiple emails, however it's advised you factory reset for each account to ensure they are each seperate. Q: Does this work with a VM? A: In short; no. Some experienced lains may be able to find a workaround. Q: Does this work with a SIM installed? A: No, if you have a SIM installed (This applys for 4.X aswell, the phone number would be automatically logged with it.) If you are using a 5.0+ device with or without a SIM it will explicitly ask for a phone number.

>>32663 >Q: Does this work with a VM? >A: In short; no. Some experienced lains may be able to find a workaround. It worked at some point but maybe still works or maybe it's already a mess. Google kept messing with workarounds even apps compiled/updated at some point during Pie can no longer be sideloaded and must require a "split apk" installer which forces you to use playstore, and grounded most third party appstores like yalp or apkpure. Although raccoon and aurora works (took a hell lot of workaround like months of them being useless and devs almost giving up). I think with the dawn of safetynet and other shenanigans, most android devices no matter how powerful enough for the next few years would not be able to use even a local rural banking app when the bootloader had been customized at some point because the fuarrrking app installer decided its best for you to use official outdated firmware with lots of unpatched CVEs rather than you, a developer to use your own kernel (because why not it's open source), your own android tree and security patches, just so you could avoid getting pwned like that guy who had their amazon account hacked and reactivated countless of times because android is open sores with completely documented CVE... androids fuarrrked seriously. at some point all of the developers (gsi/supersu/magisk/and a lot more) would call it a day and develop another beast that would end this stupid r2d2 knockoff open sores.

>>32518 >but it's limited to one new account per IP otherwise it would trigger all kinds of soykaf on google like having infinite captcha, or having your accounts require a phone number. I created 3 google accounts using the same device running lineageos fork of, I think, android 9 and gapps nano. This was a little over a year ago and the accounts were made within the same month and on the same residential IP. It was on physical hardware, not a VM. I didn't wipe between account creation, just used the android accounts/profiles feature. I was not trying to make them anonymous (to google) so perhaps if I had been more thorough in preventing leaks of personal info it would have tripped a filter, but I did not provide a phone number and there is no phone number associated with the account in the google accounts interface. It asked me for a phone number as part of the sign up processes but there was a button to skip it in the bottom right of the screen. I guess when I have some free time I'll test it in an android VM and get back to you.

I have an old phone that can make accounts without a number. If there's interest I'll create a bunch and post the info here for anons to claim.

>>32378 I remember making burner accounts in Google by just declaring yourself as a tranny in about section but that has stopped working since. I guess back them trannyism was really unacceptable and online trannies were harassed so they didn't want them to be doxxed in ant manner.

>>32669 I'm interested.