Only if OSes have some easy and sanenly robust way of limiting app access in such a granular way that these apps might be as well forced to start behaving.
Like a simple:
- Dropbox:
- Asked Permissions: File Access [{~/Dropbox, rw}]; App Install/Exec [/Applications/Dropbox.app]; Internet Access [*.dropbox.com]
- They can have additional system defined accessible path inside ~/.cache, ~/.config etc and accessible only via their app package names (if they change their signature - not notarised or shit, user gets a notification and approves it) -> this is the tricky part. I'd rather have an app get a ~/.local/appdata/<app/package name> sort of blanket access for anciliary things and do whatever the shit you want do there.
- optional permissions: []
and so on…
The thing is: the Internet access part one can control with Lulu or other similar apps. But anything else is a user nightmare - next to impossible even for a cli/tweaking/etc comfortable user. And mac's TCC is a royal mess - even their UI part for this is utterly confusing. I think only the Linux world can achieve something sane+easy like this (if it doesn't have that already; though they have not been known for being "easy").
I have achieved a lot of these for harnesses using sandbox-exec (by basically doing: "deny *; then selectively allow") on mac but it was a pain and I can't even think of trying something like that for "normal" apps.