Hacker News Reader

Comment by andybak | Hacker News Reader

This is where a small bit of editorializing in the post title might be useful. The linked page is about a bug when you use .nomedia which is kind of interesting in it's own right. However most replies here seem to be on the broader topic of whether an OS should be able to block screenshots - this is another interesting topic but one that's only vaguely related to the linked page.

I'm curious if the /u/distalx posted this because they were interested in a discussion about the former or the latter.

If the former then it has largely strayed off topic. If the former then there might be a better page to link to that is more clearly about that specific "feature".

View on HN

Android certainly does have a feature to block screenshots in apps though.

A feature that's existed for over a decade and doesn't really seem to be an issue nor abused?

It is abused, just not widely. I have seen a few apps that use it. There should never be a situation where the user is not able to screenshot their own device.

I'm inclined to say that there is a small handful of cases where apps should actively prevent/modify screenshots:

* apps that show sensitive personal info (e.g. credit card numbers, SSN, etc.) should ideally self censor the sensitive info to help prevent accidental leaks

* corporate devices where the phone and all of the data within it belongs to the employer

The real solution would be making the images directory not a free for all. There should be an OS filepicker which gets used to allow an app access to photos rather than the app having access directly. That way a screenshot is not instantly leakable.

It isn't a free for all already and that's not a "real solution" as there's a real need & use for some apps to have access to some/all images. Such as those that do automatic backup & syncing of them.

What's missing is just a user override of "no really screenshot this that wasn't an accident", that's about it.

What about the analog hole?

When it comes to piracy of copyrighted music and movies, the analog hole is deemed to offer a significantly degraded signal and therefore DRM is still effective enough.

When it comes to screenshots, I think a native screenshot and a photo of a screen offer more similarities than differences and therefore it's not worth blocking one without blocking both.

I can agree with corporate policy, however I don't need my banking app or my web browser (private browsing mode) deciding whether I know how to handle a screenshot securely on my own device. You certainly won't find these restrictions on a Windows 10 machine running Chrome. Why should it be on mobile?

I somewhat disagree! I think it’s fine when privacy is the feature. For example, Snapchat used to block screenshotting, but that was a feature both sides benefited from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com