"ethical hacker" is not defined as "someone who only hacks in fear of law". That's my point. Hackers with ethics do lots of shit. Some of them work within the law, some of them work sideways to the law, but your code of ethics and your legal code aren't quite the same thing, and you assuming they are is surprising.

It's a case of mutually assured destruction: to charge someone with impersonation, they would have to admit that they saved data that was supposed to be only for age verification and then deleted.

And a 24TB drive goes for 350, I don't see prices going up either

So is there a way to fill my social media with endless markov chains without: Spamming other users. Just sticking them all in some dedicated channel that would allow them to be easily filtered out.

Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then. it is mostly for compatibility reasons. no win32 programs are equipped to handle such granular permissions and sandboxing, they are all made with the assumption that they have access to whatever they need (other than other users' resources and things that require elevation). if Microsoft would have made that limitation to every kind of software, that Windows version would have probably been a failure in popularity because lots of software would have broken. I think S editions of windows is how they tried to go in that direction, with a more drastic way of simply just dropping support for 3rd party win32 programs. I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format. ok, so if you run linux or windows utils in a compatibility layer, they still have less of a limited access? by which I mean graphical utilities. just tried with firefox, for macos it wanted to give me an .iso file (???) if so, it seems apple is doing roughly the same as microsoft with uwp and the appx format, and linux with flatpak: it's a choice for the user