The committed code in the repo will get scraped anyway, but the data used in testing is a different story. Not that anyone's ever tested with prod data.
I don't think the issue is a practical one though. It's more the company that stands on promises of privacy using tools that are overtly share-happy that seems to be a ideological discrepancy.
But in case my initial comment's "I don' think..." wasn't clear enough, this was my attempt at understanding why this might be a concern (or at least of interest) to folks in this community, not a personal statement of condemnation or anything. I personally could not give less of a shit what code editor they use.
I don't think the concern is as much with the purity of their vibe coding, but rather that they're using an AI-first editor. This will almost certainly mean everything they're coding is being shared with AI provider(s) during the process, which some would view as at odds with Proton's stated emphasis on privacy.
Google has 182k employees as of 2023 (at least according to Wikipedia). There's no way to have that many people and not have one slip up once in a while.
Which is exactly why it overheats so quickly when they close the lid.
Let's face it, the place using a laptop on the floor with a paper sign probably doesn't have the budget for real sysadmins. At the same time, most real sysadmins know to disable the lid-closing behavior and get the laptop off of the carpet because they've been foiled in their past by people who refused to read the goddamn paper sign.
Reminds me of the pettiness during the aftermath of the class action because of the Nexus 6P battery problems. Google/Fi suddenly lost all records of my support tickets, my having purchased the phone at all, the warranty replacement they'd done, etc.
Fortunately, I keep meticulous records and still had a phone that powered down at 60% battery, so recorded a video of it as evidence and got my payout. Severely tainted my impression of Google/Fi though. Neither the faulty hardware nor the shady practices are surprising at this point.
Yes, it's possible to make such a system. However, limiting the requirement to such a system is more difficult, especially with the commercial options out there already that are based around an ID or other potentially sensitive info (e.g., credit history, mortgage records, etc.).
It's not what the OP is about, but check the requirements for various states in the US linky, and you'll see how many of them have identifying requirements built right into the law.
It's easier to oppose the concept generally than to argue specifics, especially if you're among those that believe identification is part of the purpose of these laws not an avoidable side effect.
I've always thought that requiring the sites in question to have easily identifiable metadata to assist with client-side blocking made more sense. Parents can block it on their kids' devices, and adult pervs can remain anonymous.
They identify with a political group who's primary recognizable characteristics are publicly wearing an extremely identifiable bright red hat and actively mocking and trolling their perceived opponents even in completely fictitious situations.
This could also apply to a party built entirely around the Limp Bizkit song "Hot Dog," I believe.
I don't think an article writing for an audience that needs API defined is the place to get the finer details. Also, does it really matter? Keeping secrets out of the repo is pretty basic stuff, so there's a lack of fundamental information security awareness.
I'd bet all the monies that there's a bunch of unencrypted spreadsheets with enough data to steal millions of identities on some idiot's Google Drive or whatever, and a bunch of it's been shared with commercial LLMs without any of our consent. Our personal data's being handled less securely than the average corporate SharePoint site's plans for the next pizza party.
It goes hand in hand with the devaluation of education and expertise.
Another excellent point of hypocrisy, in my experience. There's a massive (complete?) overlap between people I know who think "no child left behind" is a good thing (despite making high school diplomas, effectively, participation trophies) and people who think a high school diploma should be sufficient education qualifications for any job.
I don't understand why Trump voters want to judge Trump on his words rather than his actions.
Because it's simpler. Actions are many and have complex chains of reactions leading to various outcomes.
Meanwhile, after the election he literally said "I'm going to fix everything now." Simple, easy, and something objectively positive. Like the other comment pointed out, this isn't a decision arrived at by thinking about things.
Of the people I know, this goes well with the self-centered worldview (e.g., things finally click once they're personally affected).
Participation trophies in sports are bad, because they're good at sports which makes them feel superior. Thinking shouldn't be competitive though, because they suck at it.
This is the answer. Much more reliable than the killswitches.