As the submission shows, Tor browser isn't enough. My hypothetical browser would never have an IndexedDB API. Why should it?
"Web applications use it for offline support, caching, session state, and other local storage needs"
This use case is completely orthogonal to what my browser is meant to do. My browser would not have a concept of local storage.
The premise of starting with a modern browser and stripping away features to get privacy is flawed - it's always vulnerable to these types of things. I'm going the opposite route: Only add features if they cannot be exploited for monitoring.
If they turn off the internet, that gives you more time to meet your neighbors and do "arts and crafts" and read (cook)books. He's getting so old, at some point the horse throws him off
I think it's just a gap in definitions. The labs say models don't act on their own initiative. What counts as initiative? I guess an API call in a for loop would count.
Historically it seems like a lot of laws haven't been easy to change. Especially when they regulate zillion dollar industries.
Can we trust them to not build the data center anyways? If you think companies always get their way, then a ban is useless, as they will just do it anyways.
If on the other hand, believe in the rule of law, then creating a good airtight law that sets the stipulations that would be needed before building a data center is what lawmakers should be doing
Be careful, you open yourselves up to be used by companies like iDenfy, AgeChecker.Net, IDscan.net, and others as they would HATE to see a local-first solution like what's been proposed in CA and IL to take hold.
They want to kill those bills so that their laws that they passed in TN and TX are expanded and they make more money.
I don't really like either solution, but I definitely don't want to help the companies that want to keep a copy of my ID and face scan.
What you want exists, have at it
reply