22 ms·

Taking screenshots isn't allowed by the app after upgrading to Android 11

353 points by distalx 6y ago

rbecker 6y ago
It was a bug - this time. It's not your phone, you're just using it.
- asutekku 6y ago
  It’s to prevent you screenshotting snaps / disappearing messages sent to you or to prevent screenshotting licensed content. This is good for 99% of the people.
  - badjeans 6y ago
    Can it prevent the user from taking a photo of the phone screen with a different device?
    - jcelerier 6y ago
      if you let people like the user above you have their way without offering strong condemnation and resistance, it will eventually happen, yes
      - rbecker 6y ago
        https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-phone-cameras/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-patent-could-remotely-di... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/apple-removes-police-tracking-app-used-in-hong-kong-protests-from-its-app-store.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/apple-removes-police-trackin...
    - asutekku 6y ago
      It does not prevent, but most people will not bother.
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    local public transport service uses this block for their app. To make it harder to casually fake app tickets.
  - iyrkki_odyss 6y ago
    It would still be possible to use external camera to capture the content.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > prevent screenshotting licensed content. [..] good for 99% of the people Is this a parody, or do you truly think DRM is good?
    - penteract 6y ago
      They may mean that it stops 99% of people.
    - tpxl 6y ago
      >DRM is good In principle is DRM bad? Sure, the current implementations are pure cancers, but if they weren't, wouldn't DRM be a rather good thing?
      - rightbyte 6y ago
        Why would the user want DRM.
        hfktifjrn 6y ago
        Because they want to access the content, which might not be available otherwise. Netflix seems to be quite popular, and it's users don't seem to be bothered by the DRM - try taking a screenshot of it on the desktop, you'll get a black picture.
        rbecker 6y ago
        > might not be available otherwise. Like how they stopped showing movies on TV once VCRs entered the market, or stopped playing music on the radio once home taping killed it. If only we had had DRM on radios and TVs back then, perhaps there would still be some entertainment industry left.
        hfktifjrn 6y ago
        You are avoiding my point. Where is the user outrage over Netflix using DRM and blocking their rights to fair use. And if you don't like it, don't subscribe. Are you against companies being able to choose if to use DRM or not? Do you want to ban DRM? What about encryption, do you want to ban that too?
  - nkrisc 6y ago
    No. "Disappearing" messages are a farce. Disabling other people's screenshot capability so someone can be made to believe that their message will disappear is absurd. If you want a message that disappears, tell them in person and pat them down for a wire. Also there's nothing wrong with simply screenshotting licensed content. I'm allowed to do so for my own personal use. If someone is distributing licensed content that they are not licensed to do so, that's a matter for the courts.
    - hfktifjrn 6y ago
      Signal app on Android blocks screenshots too (configurable). Does that mean that they are clueless about security?
      - detaro 6y ago
        Signal does not pretend that it will stop the other side from screenshotting your messages.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - nkrisc 6y ago
        No, but it's a false sense of security for users. Nothing stops me from just using a separate camera to take a picture of the screen.
yamrzou 6y ago
Anyone else noticed that you can't take screenshots on Android when using Chrome Incognito mode? "Can't take screenshot due to security policy". I don't understand the rationale behind it. Why can't I take a screenshot of my own phone?
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Maybe "Incognito mode doesn't persist any information" vs "Incognito mode doesn't silently persist any information"? The latter has more opportunity for confusion. Just a guess, I don't know what the rationale is.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Both Chrome and Firefox disable screenshots in private mode. I assume that this helps defend against 3rd-party programs running in the background that might save screenshots unbeknowst of the user.
  - jkcxn 6y ago
    Are third party programs allowed to save screenshots unbeknown to the user in the first place??
    - vorticalbox 6y ago
      If the user gave it the permission too when they installed it yes.
    - jakub_g 6y ago
      In older Androids it was too easy for the app to get the permission to capture/record the screen without clear user consent. In newer Androids you need to ask permission at runtime.
      - phendrenad2 6y ago
        So Chrome and Firefox should check if they're on a new or old Android.
Razengan 6y ago
At least Apple has not done anything as user-hostile as this, yet. On iOS the balance of control is still in the user's favor, not the apps', and increasing with every release (like discrete permissions, limited location sharing, being able to choose which photos each app can see).
- EvilEy3 6y ago
  How is that user-hostile?
  - Razengan 6y ago
    See all the other comments on this page.
    - kllrnohj 6y ago
      From all the people making up wild ass nonsensical shit with no relation to link? The link is a bug. Screenshots stop working if there's a .nomedia file in the screenshot directory, removing it fixes it. That file isn't normally there and it's unclear how it ended up there, but it's just a silly bug. There hasn't been any policy change. Nothing changed with screenshots. They behave the same way today that they did 5 years ago.
- shawnz 6y ago
  The balance of control is in the users favour on iOS even though it doesn't allow such basic affordances as sideloading apps?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Side loading apps is not in the user’s favor though. The iPhone is purchased explicitly to avoid that.
Fiveplus 6y ago
>Removing the ".nomedia" file from my snapshot folder solved the issue. Not sure whether I created the file or not, but apparently excluding it from the library breaks snapshots. Hope this helps! That seems like it.
- seaish 6y ago
  Had to look it up, but the purpose of .nomedia is to tell apps not to scan that directory for content. It's basically a suggestion, but say you have a dir with a bunch of cached web assets; it would be useful to drop a .nomedia file in there. So really this seems like a bug in the screenshot tool for being too strict (it isn't supposed to prevent writing, only reading). Like the screenshot tool tries to create the dir when it already exists (but can't be seen), fails, and gives the wrong error message.
JosephRedfern 6y ago
Fun fact: 5/6 years ago, a bunch of Huawei phones came with world readable /dev/fb0 (framebuffer) device files. This made it trivial for any application to read the display, totally bypassing any Android screenshot/screen recording API (not that one existed at the time). Some of those devices also had readable /dev/event/input* files, which allowed touchscreen interaction to be monitored.
- jbirer 6y ago
  Sounds like a good backdoor with plausible deniability ("the dev forgot to restore permissions").
  - tsar_bomba 6y ago
    True in principle, while in the real world the devs didn't even inspect perms on those files or changed them deliberately to fix some access control issue without a second thought. Welcome to embedded software, where the product is ready when it passes the functional tests. In related news, I have seen at least two proprietary drivers which allowed userspace libraries to program the hardware without any kernel oversight, incuding things like DMA engines. Pointed it out to one vendor; "yeah, we guess it's not ideal, but you know, details of the hardware is our secret sauce and customers demand no binaries in the kernel because reasons, blah blah". I assume many of those embedded OpenGL implementations may work that way. Anyone with evidence to the contrary?
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    I think Hanlon's razor applies. This sort of shoddy work was pretty common in early Android phones, as companies with little software experience adapted to being OS vendors. Here's another similar in concept (though much worse) one from Samsung: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-6422 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-6422
    - exikyut 6y ago
      > The kernel in Samsung Galaxy S2, Galaxy Note 2, MEIZU MX, and possibly other Android devices, when running an Exynos 4210 or 4412 processor, uses weak permissions (0666) for /dev/exynos-mem, which allows attackers to read or write arbitrary physical memory and gain privileges via a crafted application, as demonstrated by ExynosAbuse.
Lucasoato 6y ago
This is absurd... Why are the apps alerted when the user is taking a screenshot? Why can they even block that action? How can people even change that since Android is directly controlled by Google?
- shawnz 6y ago
  Presumably, apps could use the screenshot API to extract private information from other apps
  - JosephRedfern 6y ago
    You'd think that a user-initiated screenshot should be distinguishable from a API initiated one, though. In my experience, it mainly seems to be banking and messaging apps that monitor or block screenshot events.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      If a user initiated screenshot was distinguishable from an API initiated one, then you could argue third party screenshotting apps aren't first class citizens on the platform
      - JosephRedfern 6y ago
        Is that not reasonable?
        shawnz 6y ago
        Anyone who uses one will probably be wondering why your preferred method of taking screenshots always works whereas theirs is sometimes blocked. The problem hasn't really been fixed for everyone that way.
      - shakna 6y ago
        Which can be worked around by the user being able to set their default and preferred screenshot app.
sdwolfz 6y ago
You can use scrcpy (https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy) to bypass the policy if you really need to have a screenshot. All you need is to have a Linux laptop at hand, debug mode enabled, and a USB cable plugged in. Super simple stuff right? (this is satire!) Now, I'm as frustrated as anybody else here that I'm forbidden to use whatever feature I want from MY phone, for which I paid, with MY MOENY (and nobody else's apart from mine). But then again, what choice do I have? Not buy a phone? Switch to what? There are no viable and practical alternatives. It's a "take it or leave it" situation.
- gen_greyface 6y ago
  scrcpy works with mac os too, iirc
  - BuildTheRobots 6y ago
    and windows as well...
- grishka 6y ago
  > But then again, what choice do I have? Unlock the bootloader, install Xposed and this module: https://repo.xposed.info/module/fi.veetipaananen.android.disableflagsecure https://repo.xposed.info/module/fi.veetipaananen.android.dis...
  - sdwolfz 6y ago
    Won't unlocking the bootloader make banking apps not work anymore? Had this issue when I tried LineageOS on my old phone, and I really like the convenience of those apps as opposed to using the website, which is extremely bad. Also, how do I do all you said above? (I need a step by step tutorial). Also is it reversible? Are there any other security implications?
    - grishka 6y ago
      > Won't unlocking the bootloader make banking apps not work anymore? Depends on how paranoid your bank is. There's this SafetyNet thing that checks for "system integrity". It's part of Google Services. For now, it's possible to bypass these checks using Magisk, but I've read that Google is testing the new method involving TrustZone — a hardware trusted execution environment within the SoC where you aren't one of the trusted parties. > Also, how do I do all you said above? (I need a step by step tutorial). There should be plenty on xda-developers.com > Also is it reversible? On Google devices, yes, completely. You can reflash the factory images that Google provides and relock the bootloader. On others... it varies, on Samsung especially. > Are there any other security implications? If you leave the bootloader unlocked, anyone with physical access to your device will be able to reboot it into the bootloader and load arbitrary code with OS kernel privileges. From there they'll be able to modify the installed system. They won't be able to read the /data partition [right away] because it's encrypted with your password/pattern. IMO it's really a shame you can't re-lock the bootloader with your own signing key.
grishka 6y ago
I had a similar problem when I updated to Android 10 and the MediaStore content provider decided to get stuck in an infinite loop trying to upgrade its database. I couldn't take screenshots, use the camera, or use any functionality in any apps that would rely on the photo gallery. Now, that's me, a long time Android app developer, and it took me an hour to figure out what the hell happened (wiping the data for said content provider fixed everything, obviously). Imagine what would a regular user do if they encountered this issue? I had a fully-stock installation too, didn't even unlock the bootloader. I don't understand why modern software has to suck so much. If you can't perform some operation for some reason, for the love of god, at least show a sensible error message so people who haven't spent ridiculous amounts of time reading the source code of your product as part of their job can troubleshoot their systems. Not "something failed, go read logcat, maybe it helps, good luck".
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  > at least show a sensible error message so people who haven't spent ridiculous amounts of time reading the source code of your product as part of their job can troubleshoot their systems. Not "something failed, go read logcat, maybe it helps, good luck". While I’m not sure whether it’s true, I think the reasoning behind this is that to the average user, a sensible error message is about as useful as "something failed, good luck".
  - grishka 6y ago
    They could at least google it and find out how someone else solved the same problem. No such luck with more generalized error messages.
    - nexuist 6y ago
      An infinite loop as you described however is not really an error condition; in fact this is the premise of the Halting Problem [1] which is not solvable as far as we know. There's no way for the media provider to know if the loop will ever resolve and it may just be the case that you have an absolutely massive photo library that takes a lot of time to load. You could argue that they could add some sort of background timer that triggers an error if the provider takes too long to deliver data, but then what should that timeout be? What if the user's device is just naturally slow or the photo library is stored on some sort of external storage device (SD card maybe) with awful bandwidth? If your timeout is too low, it will prevent users from legitimately accessing their photo library; if it's too high, it ruins the point of having a timeout in the first place. In this sort of scenario the better choice rather than implementing error detection is just fixing the original problem that caused an infinite loop so users don't need to fix anything in the first place. I think the reason why debugging/resolving issues seems so complicated in modern times is in part because we already did fix most/all the "easy" issues from the past generation -- the only remaining issues are extremely hard to catch or, in the case of the Halting Problem you experienced, mathematically impossible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
mensetmanusman 6y ago
iOS Screen recording does not work with digital rights controlled content. I wont be surprised if iOS screenshots are eventually also altered/prevented in the future using similar levels of control.
Cantbekhan 6y ago
Alternatively on Android you can use Smali Patcher https://forum.xda-developers.com/apps/magisk/module-smali-patcher-0-7-t3680053 https://forum.xda-developers.com/apps/magisk/module-smali-pa... with a rooted Android. This program will generate a magisk module that will enable disabling the secure flag for the pesky apps disallowing screenshots. It will also allow you to enable mock locations. At your own risk.
flyinghamster 6y ago
What's exceptionally stupid is that all I have to do is point a camera at the screen. DRM for the fail, yet again.
- shawnz 6y ago
  It's a security measure, not a DRM measure. The risk of pointing a camera at the screen is not the kind of attack which this is meant to prevent.
  - neallindsay 6y ago
    …what kind of attack is this meant to prevent?
exabrial 6y ago
Take another phone, aim at screen, take screen shot. It's a stupid "feature" that lulls user's into a false sense of security. The real motivation is to prevent badly behaved apps from taking screenshots in the background, but requiring the user shortcut input to do that would be more secure and a better option.
- phendrenad2 6y ago
  The real motivation is preventing badly behaved apps from taking screenshots in the background, without investing any engineering effort into adding the correct user warnings and settings to differentiate between intended and unintended screenshots.
hfktifjrn 6y ago
Signal app also has an option to disable screenshots on Android using this facility. I wonder what HN thinks about that: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360043469312-Screen-Security https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360043469312-Sc...
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  If it's user-controlled, why would anyone object?
Upvoter33 6y ago
just buy one more phone, you know, the one to take pictures of the other phone with. :)
phendrenad2 6y ago
This problem really reminds you that Android is Linux. Everything is a file, even the bugs.
- jaspergilley 6y ago
  Well...Linux plus rootkit preventing you from doing what you want on a device you've paid for
dannyw 6y ago
It's blocking you from taking screenshots today. It's blocking you from disabling location services tomorrow.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  This is a bug with incorrect handling of the .nomedia file. iOS already doesn't allow you to disable location services. That is intended behavior.
  - nexuist 6y ago
    What are you talking about? You can easily disable location services on any Apple device.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      But if you disable location services, you cannot get your location at all. This is unlike more privacy-respecting platforms like Android, which let you get your location from the GPS sensor without enabling location services. Suppose Apple occasionally sent "anonymized" screenshots back up to Apple as part of "screen services." You could say you could disable screen services by not turning on the display, and that is what disabling location services is like on Apple devices.
      - kmeisthax 6y ago
        That sounds like a bug on Android's part. If you disable something called "location services", then you would expect that the GPS sensor no longer works.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        Why would you expect that? If you deny an app the location permission, you would expect that the app cannot use GPS, and that is exactly what happens on Android. If you want faster location information in return for sharing "anonymized" location information with Google, you can optionally turn on location services to do so. This is considered a big enough privacy invasion that Android devices with Google services ask the user about it on initial set up. On iOS, if you want to get your location at all via any app, even an app that keeps the locations it receives on the device, you automatically consent to having your location sent to Apple, and Apple doesn't even tell the user that they're doing this unless they go out of their way to find the privacy policy.
bigjimmyk3 6y ago
This seems to be in the same vein as "you can't be allowed to record your call audio," I suppose because you might theoretically use that capability to break the law.
- ashtonian 6y ago
  So effing stupid. Every company/ vendor has automatic call recording but the prescience is that I as an individual am too much of a child to take legal liability for recording.. Infuriating. I pay for ring central just so I can record my calls. Even they want to give a warning prompt, had to customize the warning to be an empty message.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  You clearly didn't even click the link. It's a bug report....
perryizgr8 6y ago
When you buy a pixel, understand you are paying to participate in a beta program designed to further some Google employees careers. You're not buying a phone that is designed to serve your interests. If you want a phone for daily use, get an iPhone or galaxy.
raffraffraff 6y ago
2021 will be the year of Linux on the ... Phone
- exikyut 6y ago
  Heh, sentiment noted - but the PinePhone is a thing now, so... let's see just how bad GTK and Qt can be on mobile, eh? :D
  - cesarb 6y ago
    > let's see just how bad GTK and Qt can be on mobile GTK and Qt on mobile is not a new thing, Maemo/Meego were earlier examples. In my experience, it worked fine.
- jaspergilley 6y ago
  God, I hope so. I've been meaning to try the PinePhone and maybe others at some point
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jccalhoun 6y ago
I'm on a pixel 4a and haven't encountered this. I just tried it on a couple apps including my bank's app and it worked fine. So this seems like a bug?
LockAndLol 6y ago
To everybody complaining about how there are no options, my phone my money, etc., go donate (money, code, documentation) to a project actively working on providing an alternative. Put your money where your mouth is. Actions speak louder than words.
vaccinator 6y ago
First they block the sd card and now screenshots because they dont trust their app review process?
- vaccinator 6y ago
  So much for a safe app store
crazygringo 6y ago
A bunch of comments here are assuming this is something intentional on Google's part. Simply from the error message alone, it's obvious that this is a bug. As well as from how easy the workaround is. Google might do many things wrong intentionally, but I see zero evidence this is one of them. Just a bug, folks.
- mavidser 6y ago
  Yeah, the comments seem to imply a case of 'commenting before reading the content' behavior to me.
- arnaudsm 6y ago
  This is a feature: FLAG_SECURE is real and used by many apps. i.e. Chrome's Incognito mode. Sure, you have workarounds for power-users, but Google is locking the Android ecosystem progressively for regular users. Just like the Manifest v3 for Chrome. Maybe Google is doing the "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy that worked really well for Microsoft in the past.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    Do you have any evidence for that? The thread is about behavior caused by a presumably erroneous ".nomedia" file residing in certain users' screenshot folders. The FLAG_SECURE feature doesn't appear to have anything to do with that. Two entirely separate things, unless you can show otherwise.
    - arnaudsm 6y ago
      The thread describes a bug indeed, but the feature really exists. Quoting the Android SDK reference : "FLAG_SECURE [...] Treat the content of the window as secure, preventing it from appearing in screenshots" [1] Try to screenshot while in Chrome's incognito, you'll see it in action. [1] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/WindowManager.LayoutParams#FLAG_SECURE https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/WindowM...
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
bdcravens 6y ago
At least you're not in a walled garden. /s
Pingu1999 6y ago
hola
ur-whale 6y ago
Or you could just have a second phone and take a picture of the screen of the first ...
andybak 6y ago
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".
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  Android certainly does have a feature to block screenshots in apps though.
  - kllrnohj 6y ago
    A feature that's existed for over a decade and doesn't really seem to be an issue nor abused?
    - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
      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.
      - kevindong 6y ago
        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
        6y ago
lsb 6y ago
As long as the content is coming to your eyes, you can use another device to record it. If you have a separate phone that you use as a second factor for your 2FA, you have a convenient way of photodocumenting any screen that you see. People shakily recording their TV doesn't win any awards, but is evidence enough in a serious pinch.
skee0083 6y ago
I'm done with android. The final straw for me was when i needed to call 911 for my grandmother and android thought it was a good idea to play notification sounds in the middle of the conversation. Couldn't even hear the operator over all the loud DING DING DING.
udia 6y ago
Having a Pixel 3 phone, I was annoyed that long-screenshots and call recording weren't available by default. Even when I rooted the stock ROM and disabled automatic updates, I would find that occasionally one morning my root setup would fail SafetyNet (where it was working the night prior). I addressed this by flashing the PixelDust rom on my phone. It now has stable root and I control all updates. As mentioned in many other comments, it's nice to own your device and not have it broken by automatic updates pushed from some external entity (intentional or not). A quick writeup for how to do this is available here: https://udia.ca/posts/2020/08/root_pixel_3_with_ota/ https://udia.ca/posts/2020/08/root_pixel_3_with_ota/
grawprog 6y ago
I'm a bit confused, reading through comments here, this seemed like some nefarious issue, reading the conversation thread in the op though it seems like an error with the .nomedia file in the folder that's fixed by either appending a second dot to the front of the file name or removing the file. I'm still unclear whether this was some intentional issue or an error. The fix seems easy enough, if a bit opaque and non-obvious. That thread's also from September, does this issue still exist?
- l33tman 6y ago
  Yes this thread is just by people not actually reading the thread in the top in combination with a misleading support article subject..
amelius 6y ago
Wait a second, does the app know that I'm taking a screenshot?
- smadge 6y ago
  Yes. For example when you take a screenshot of a message in Snapchat, the sender is notified.
  - amelius 6y ago
    This sucks and I consider this a serious breach of privacy.
    - fwip 6y ago
      It's a feature to protect the sender's privacy.
      - bloodorange 6y ago
        by violating the receiver's privacy?
        fwip 6y ago
        Yes.
dvduval 6y ago
I will especially hate this when I'm trying to translate something. If I can't copy and paste text into a translate app, the next step would be to take a screenshot and then use OCR. Of course if I'm really determined there are ways to still do a translation. I can only imagine what sort of problem is mighy arise for someone with accessibility issues.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Anti-trust action against Google and Apple for holding the mobile OS and app distribution market hostage for over a decade cannot come fast enough.
m4rtink 6y ago
Today they take away the ability to make screenshots - what will they take away next ? Being able to run your own scripts and binaries ?? No! They already took that away in Android 10... https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/wiki/Termux-and-Android-10 https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/wiki/Termux-and-An...
JaceLightning 6y ago
Fake news. Been on Android 11 for awhile. Take screenshots every day.
5droid 6y ago
Maybe should downgrade the android version. https://5droid.com/fl-studio-mobile/ https://5droid.com/fl-studio-mobile/
aitchnyu 6y ago
Tangential, but after copying an URL in MS Teams, I can only paste it to another MS app. Pasting it anywhere gives a "your org doesnt allow this lol". I cant open links unless I installed Edge. How did MS get such powers in Android?

353 points by distalx 6y ago

rbecker 6y ago

It was a bug - this time. It's not your phone, you're just using it.

asutekku 6y ago
It’s to prevent you screenshotting snaps / disappearing messages sent to you or to prevent screenshotting licensed content. This is good for 99% of the people.
- badjeans 6y ago
  Can it prevent the user from taking a photo of the phone screen with a different device?
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    if you let people like the user above you have their way without offering strong condemnation and resistance, it will eventually happen, yes
    - rbecker 6y ago
      https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-phone-cameras/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-patent-could-remotely-di... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/apple-removes-police-tracking-app-used-in-hong-kong-protests-from-its-app-store.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/apple-removes-police-trackin...
  - asutekku 6y ago
    It does not prevent, but most people will not bother.
- kzrdude 6y ago
  local public transport service uses this block for their app. To make it harder to casually fake app tickets.
- iyrkki_odyss 6y ago
  It would still be possible to use external camera to capture the content.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > prevent screenshotting licensed content. [..] good for 99% of the people Is this a parody, or do you truly think DRM is good?
  - penteract 6y ago
    They may mean that it stops 99% of people.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    >DRM is good In principle is DRM bad? Sure, the current implementations are pure cancers, but if they weren't, wouldn't DRM be a rather good thing?
    - rightbyte 6y ago
      Why would the user want DRM.
      - hfktifjrn 6y ago
        Because they want to access the content, which might not be available otherwise. Netflix seems to be quite popular, and it's users don't seem to be bothered by the DRM - try taking a screenshot of it on the desktop, you'll get a black picture.
        rbecker 6y ago
        > might not be available otherwise. Like how they stopped showing movies on TV once VCRs entered the market, or stopped playing music on the radio once home taping killed it. If only we had had DRM on radios and TVs back then, perhaps there would still be some entertainment industry left.
        hfktifjrn 6y ago
        You are avoiding my point. Where is the user outrage over Netflix using DRM and blocking their rights to fair use. And if you don't like it, don't subscribe. Are you against companies being able to choose if to use DRM or not? Do you want to ban DRM? What about encryption, do you want to ban that too?
- nkrisc 6y ago
  No. "Disappearing" messages are a farce. Disabling other people's screenshot capability so someone can be made to believe that their message will disappear is absurd. If you want a message that disappears, tell them in person and pat them down for a wire. Also there's nothing wrong with simply screenshotting licensed content. I'm allowed to do so for my own personal use. If someone is distributing licensed content that they are not licensed to do so, that's a matter for the courts.
  - hfktifjrn 6y ago
    Signal app on Android blocks screenshots too (configurable). Does that mean that they are clueless about security?
    - detaro 6y ago
      Signal does not pretend that it will stop the other side from screenshotting your messages.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - nkrisc 6y ago
      No, but it's a false sense of security for users. Nothing stops me from just using a separate camera to take a picture of the screen.

yamrzou 6y ago

Anyone else noticed that you can't take screenshots on Android when using Chrome Incognito mode? "Can't take screenshot due to security policy". I don't understand the rationale behind it. Why can't I take a screenshot of my own phone?

maxerickson 6y ago
Maybe "Incognito mode doesn't persist any information" vs "Incognito mode doesn't silently persist any information"? The latter has more opportunity for confusion. Just a guess, I don't know what the rationale is.
zozbot234 6y ago
Both Chrome and Firefox disable screenshots in private mode. I assume that this helps defend against 3rd-party programs running in the background that might save screenshots unbeknowst of the user.
- jkcxn 6y ago
  Are third party programs allowed to save screenshots unbeknown to the user in the first place??
  - vorticalbox 6y ago
    If the user gave it the permission too when they installed it yes.
  - jakub_g 6y ago
    In older Androids it was too easy for the app to get the permission to capture/record the screen without clear user consent. In newer Androids you need to ask permission at runtime.
    - phendrenad2 6y ago
      So Chrome and Firefox should check if they're on a new or old Android.

Razengan 6y ago

At least Apple has not done anything as user-hostile as this, yet. On iOS the balance of control is still in the user's favor, not the apps', and increasing with every release (like discrete permissions, limited location sharing, being able to choose which photos each app can see).

EvilEy3 6y ago
How is that user-hostile?
- Razengan 6y ago
  See all the other comments on this page.
  - kllrnohj 6y ago
    From all the people making up wild ass nonsensical shit with no relation to link? The link is a bug. Screenshots stop working if there's a .nomedia file in the screenshot directory, removing it fixes it. That file isn't normally there and it's unclear how it ended up there, but it's just a silly bug. There hasn't been any policy change. Nothing changed with screenshots. They behave the same way today that they did 5 years ago.
shawnz 6y ago
The balance of control is in the users favour on iOS even though it doesn't allow such basic affordances as sideloading apps?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ericmay 6y ago
  Side loading apps is not in the user’s favor though. The iPhone is purchased explicitly to avoid that.

Fiveplus 6y ago

>Removing the ".nomedia" file from my snapshot folder solved the issue. Not sure whether I created the file or not, but apparently excluding it from the library breaks snapshots. Hope this helps! That seems like it.

seaish 6y ago
Had to look it up, but the purpose of .nomedia is to tell apps not to scan that directory for content. It's basically a suggestion, but say you have a dir with a bunch of cached web assets; it would be useful to drop a .nomedia file in there. So really this seems like a bug in the screenshot tool for being too strict (it isn't supposed to prevent writing, only reading). Like the screenshot tool tries to create the dir when it already exists (but can't be seen), fails, and gives the wrong error message.

JosephRedfern 6y ago

Fun fact: 5/6 years ago, a bunch of Huawei phones came with world readable /dev/fb0 (framebuffer) device files. This made it trivial for any application to read the display, totally bypassing any Android screenshot/screen recording API (not that one existed at the time). Some of those devices also had readable /dev/event/input* files, which allowed touchscreen interaction to be monitored.

jbirer 6y ago
Sounds like a good backdoor with plausible deniability ("the dev forgot to restore permissions").
- tsar_bomba 6y ago
  True in principle, while in the real world the devs didn't even inspect perms on those files or changed them deliberately to fix some access control issue without a second thought. Welcome to embedded software, where the product is ready when it passes the functional tests. In related news, I have seen at least two proprietary drivers which allowed userspace libraries to program the hardware without any kernel oversight, incuding things like DMA engines. Pointed it out to one vendor; "yeah, we guess it's not ideal, but you know, details of the hardware is our secret sauce and customers demand no binaries in the kernel because reasons, blah blah". I assume many of those embedded OpenGL implementations may work that way. Anyone with evidence to the contrary?
- rsynnott 6y ago
  I think Hanlon's razor applies. This sort of shoddy work was pretty common in early Android phones, as companies with little software experience adapted to being OS vendors. Here's another similar in concept (though much worse) one from Samsung: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-6422 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-6422
  - exikyut 6y ago
    > The kernel in Samsung Galaxy S2, Galaxy Note 2, MEIZU MX, and possibly other Android devices, when running an Exynos 4210 or 4412 processor, uses weak permissions (0666) for /dev/exynos-mem, which allows attackers to read or write arbitrary physical memory and gain privileges via a crafted application, as demonstrated by ExynosAbuse.

Lucasoato 6y ago

This is absurd... Why are the apps alerted when the user is taking a screenshot? Why can they even block that action? How can people even change that since Android is directly controlled by Google?

shawnz 6y ago
Presumably, apps could use the screenshot API to extract private information from other apps
- JosephRedfern 6y ago
  You'd think that a user-initiated screenshot should be distinguishable from a API initiated one, though. In my experience, it mainly seems to be banking and messaging apps that monitor or block screenshot events.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    If a user initiated screenshot was distinguishable from an API initiated one, then you could argue third party screenshotting apps aren't first class citizens on the platform
    - JosephRedfern 6y ago
      Is that not reasonable?
      - shawnz 6y ago
        Anyone who uses one will probably be wondering why your preferred method of taking screenshots always works whereas theirs is sometimes blocked. The problem hasn't really been fixed for everyone that way.
    - shakna 6y ago
      Which can be worked around by the user being able to set their default and preferred screenshot app.

sdwolfz 6y ago

You can use scrcpy (https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy) to bypass the policy if you really need to have a screenshot. All you need is to have a Linux laptop at hand, debug mode enabled, and a USB cable plugged in. Super simple stuff right? (this is satire!) Now, I'm as frustrated as anybody else here that I'm forbidden to use whatever feature I want from MY phone, for which I paid, with MY MOENY (and nobody else's apart from mine). But then again, what choice do I have? Not buy a phone? Switch to what? There are no viable and practical alternatives. It's a "take it or leave it" situation.

gen_greyface 6y ago
scrcpy works with mac os too, iirc
- BuildTheRobots 6y ago
  and windows as well...
grishka 6y ago
> But then again, what choice do I have? Unlock the bootloader, install Xposed and this module: https://repo.xposed.info/module/fi.veetipaananen.android.disableflagsecure https://repo.xposed.info/module/fi.veetipaananen.android.dis...
- sdwolfz 6y ago
  Won't unlocking the bootloader make banking apps not work anymore? Had this issue when I tried LineageOS on my old phone, and I really like the convenience of those apps as opposed to using the website, which is extremely bad. Also, how do I do all you said above? (I need a step by step tutorial). Also is it reversible? Are there any other security implications?
  - grishka 6y ago
    > Won't unlocking the bootloader make banking apps not work anymore? Depends on how paranoid your bank is. There's this SafetyNet thing that checks for "system integrity". It's part of Google Services. For now, it's possible to bypass these checks using Magisk, but I've read that Google is testing the new method involving TrustZone — a hardware trusted execution environment within the SoC where you aren't one of the trusted parties. > Also, how do I do all you said above? (I need a step by step tutorial). There should be plenty on xda-developers.com > Also is it reversible? On Google devices, yes, completely. You can reflash the factory images that Google provides and relock the bootloader. On others... it varies, on Samsung especially. > Are there any other security implications? If you leave the bootloader unlocked, anyone with physical access to your device will be able to reboot it into the bootloader and load arbitrary code with OS kernel privileges. From there they'll be able to modify the installed system. They won't be able to read the /data partition [right away] because it's encrypted with your password/pattern. IMO it's really a shame you can't re-lock the bootloader with your own signing key.

grishka 6y ago

I had a similar problem when I updated to Android 10 and the MediaStore content provider decided to get stuck in an infinite loop trying to upgrade its database. I couldn't take screenshots, use the camera, or use any functionality in any apps that would rely on the photo gallery. Now, that's me, a long time Android app developer, and it took me an hour to figure out what the hell happened (wiping the data for said content provider fixed everything, obviously). Imagine what would a regular user do if they encountered this issue? I had a fully-stock installation too, didn't even unlock the bootloader. I don't understand why modern software has to suck so much. If you can't perform some operation for some reason, for the love of god, at least show a sensible error message so people who haven't spent ridiculous amounts of time reading the source code of your product as part of their job can troubleshoot their systems. Not "something failed, go read logcat, maybe it helps, good luck".

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
> at least show a sensible error message so people who haven't spent ridiculous amounts of time reading the source code of your product as part of their job can troubleshoot their systems. Not "something failed, go read logcat, maybe it helps, good luck". While I’m not sure whether it’s true, I think the reasoning behind this is that to the average user, a sensible error message is about as useful as "something failed, good luck".
- grishka 6y ago
  They could at least google it and find out how someone else solved the same problem. No such luck with more generalized error messages.
  - nexuist 6y ago
    An infinite loop as you described however is not really an error condition; in fact this is the premise of the Halting Problem [1] which is not solvable as far as we know. There's no way for the media provider to know if the loop will ever resolve and it may just be the case that you have an absolutely massive photo library that takes a lot of time to load. You could argue that they could add some sort of background timer that triggers an error if the provider takes too long to deliver data, but then what should that timeout be? What if the user's device is just naturally slow or the photo library is stored on some sort of external storage device (SD card maybe) with awful bandwidth? If your timeout is too low, it will prevent users from legitimately accessing their photo library; if it's too high, it ruins the point of having a timeout in the first place. In this sort of scenario the better choice rather than implementing error detection is just fixing the original problem that caused an infinite loop so users don't need to fix anything in the first place. I think the reason why debugging/resolving issues seems so complicated in modern times is in part because we already did fix most/all the "easy" issues from the past generation -- the only remaining issues are extremely hard to catch or, in the case of the Halting Problem you experienced, mathematically impossible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

mensetmanusman 6y ago

iOS Screen recording does not work with digital rights controlled content. I wont be surprised if iOS screenshots are eventually also altered/prevented in the future using similar levels of control.

Cantbekhan 6y ago

Alternatively on Android you can use Smali Patcher https://forum.xda-developers.com/apps/magisk/module-smali-patcher-0-7-t3680053 https://forum.xda-developers.com/apps/magisk/module-smali-pa... with a rooted Android. This program will generate a magisk module that will enable disabling the secure flag for the pesky apps disallowing screenshots. It will also allow you to enable mock locations. At your own risk.

flyinghamster 6y ago

What's exceptionally stupid is that all I have to do is point a camera at the screen. DRM for the fail, yet again.

shawnz 6y ago
It's a security measure, not a DRM measure. The risk of pointing a camera at the screen is not the kind of attack which this is meant to prevent.
- neallindsay 6y ago
  …what kind of attack is this meant to prevent?

exabrial 6y ago

Take another phone, aim at screen, take screen shot. It's a stupid "feature" that lulls user's into a false sense of security. The real motivation is to prevent badly behaved apps from taking screenshots in the background, but requiring the user shortcut input to do that would be more secure and a better option.

phendrenad2 6y ago
The real motivation is preventing badly behaved apps from taking screenshots in the background, without investing any engineering effort into adding the correct user warnings and settings to differentiate between intended and unintended screenshots.

hfktifjrn 6y ago

Signal app also has an option to disable screenshots on Android using this facility. I wonder what HN thinks about that: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360043469312-Screen-Security https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360043469312-Sc...

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
If it's user-controlled, why would anyone object?

Upvoter33 6y ago

just buy one more phone, you know, the one to take pictures of the other phone with. :)

phendrenad2 6y ago

This problem really reminds you that Android is Linux. Everything is a file, even the bugs.

jaspergilley 6y ago
Well...Linux plus rootkit preventing you from doing what you want on a device you've paid for

dannyw 6y ago

It's blocking you from taking screenshots today. It's blocking you from disabling location services tomorrow.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
This is a bug with incorrect handling of the .nomedia file. iOS already doesn't allow you to disable location services. That is intended behavior.
- nexuist 6y ago
  What are you talking about? You can easily disable location services on any Apple device.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    But if you disable location services, you cannot get your location at all. This is unlike more privacy-respecting platforms like Android, which let you get your location from the GPS sensor without enabling location services. Suppose Apple occasionally sent "anonymized" screenshots back up to Apple as part of "screen services." You could say you could disable screen services by not turning on the display, and that is what disabling location services is like on Apple devices.
    - kmeisthax 6y ago
      That sounds like a bug on Android's part. If you disable something called "location services", then you would expect that the GPS sensor no longer works.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        Why would you expect that? If you deny an app the location permission, you would expect that the app cannot use GPS, and that is exactly what happens on Android. If you want faster location information in return for sharing "anonymized" location information with Google, you can optionally turn on location services to do so. This is considered a big enough privacy invasion that Android devices with Google services ask the user about it on initial set up. On iOS, if you want to get your location at all via any app, even an app that keeps the locations it receives on the device, you automatically consent to having your location sent to Apple, and Apple doesn't even tell the user that they're doing this unless they go out of their way to find the privacy policy.

bigjimmyk3 6y ago

This seems to be in the same vein as "you can't be allowed to record your call audio," I suppose because you might theoretically use that capability to break the law.

ashtonian 6y ago
So effing stupid. Every company/ vendor has automatic call recording but the prescience is that I as an individual am too much of a child to take legal liability for recording.. Infuriating. I pay for ring central just so I can record my calls. Even they want to give a warning prompt, had to customize the warning to be an empty message.
Dahoon 6y ago
You clearly didn't even click the link. It's a bug report....

perryizgr8 6y ago

When you buy a pixel, understand you are paying to participate in a beta program designed to further some Google employees careers. You're not buying a phone that is designed to serve your interests. If you want a phone for daily use, get an iPhone or galaxy.

raffraffraff 6y ago

2021 will be the year of Linux on the ... Phone

exikyut 6y ago
Heh, sentiment noted - but the PinePhone is a thing now, so... let's see just how bad GTK and Qt can be on mobile, eh? :D
- cesarb 6y ago
  > let's see just how bad GTK and Qt can be on mobile GTK and Qt on mobile is not a new thing, Maemo/Meego were earlier examples. In my experience, it worked fine.
jaspergilley 6y ago
God, I hope so. I've been meaning to try the PinePhone and maybe others at some point
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jccalhoun 6y ago

I'm on a pixel 4a and haven't encountered this. I just tried it on a couple apps including my bank's app and it worked fine. So this seems like a bug?

LockAndLol 6y ago

To everybody complaining about how there are no options, my phone my money, etc., go donate (money, code, documentation) to a project actively working on providing an alternative. Put your money where your mouth is. Actions speak louder than words.

vaccinator 6y ago

First they block the sd card and now screenshots because they dont trust their app review process?

vaccinator 6y ago
So much for a safe app store

crazygringo 6y ago

A bunch of comments here are assuming this is something intentional on Google's part. Simply from the error message alone, it's obvious that this is a bug. As well as from how easy the workaround is. Google might do many things wrong intentionally, but I see zero evidence this is one of them. Just a bug, folks.

mavidser 6y ago
Yeah, the comments seem to imply a case of 'commenting before reading the content' behavior to me.
arnaudsm 6y ago
This is a feature: FLAG_SECURE is real and used by many apps. i.e. Chrome's Incognito mode. Sure, you have workarounds for power-users, but Google is locking the Android ecosystem progressively for regular users. Just like the Manifest v3 for Chrome. Maybe Google is doing the "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy that worked really well for Microsoft in the past.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence for that? The thread is about behavior caused by a presumably erroneous ".nomedia" file residing in certain users' screenshot folders. The FLAG_SECURE feature doesn't appear to have anything to do with that. Two entirely separate things, unless you can show otherwise.
  - arnaudsm 6y ago
    The thread describes a bug indeed, but the feature really exists. Quoting the Android SDK reference : "FLAG_SECURE [...] Treat the content of the window as secure, preventing it from appearing in screenshots" [1] Try to screenshot while in Chrome's incognito, you'll see it in action. [1] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/WindowManager.LayoutParams#FLAG_SECURE https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/WindowM...
  - Dylan16807 6y ago

bdcravens 6y ago

At least you're not in a walled garden. /s

Pingu1999 6y ago

hola

ur-whale 6y ago

Or you could just have a second phone and take a picture of the screen of the first ...

andybak 6y ago

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".

Polylactic_acid 6y ago
Android certainly does have a feature to block screenshots in apps though.
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  A feature that's existed for over a decade and doesn't really seem to be an issue nor abused?
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    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.
    - kevindong 6y ago
      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
      - 6y ago

lsb 6y ago

As long as the content is coming to your eyes, you can use another device to record it. If you have a separate phone that you use as a second factor for your 2FA, you have a convenient way of photodocumenting any screen that you see. People shakily recording their TV doesn't win any awards, but is evidence enough in a serious pinch.

skee0083 6y ago

I'm done with android. The final straw for me was when i needed to call 911 for my grandmother and android thought it was a good idea to play notification sounds in the middle of the conversation. Couldn't even hear the operator over all the loud DING DING DING.

udia 6y ago

Having a Pixel 3 phone, I was annoyed that long-screenshots and call recording weren't available by default. Even when I rooted the stock ROM and disabled automatic updates, I would find that occasionally one morning my root setup would fail SafetyNet (where it was working the night prior). I addressed this by flashing the PixelDust rom on my phone. It now has stable root and I control all updates. As mentioned in many other comments, it's nice to own your device and not have it broken by automatic updates pushed from some external entity (intentional or not). A quick writeup for how to do this is available here: https://udia.ca/posts/2020/08/root_pixel_3_with_ota/ https://udia.ca/posts/2020/08/root_pixel_3_with_ota/

grawprog 6y ago

I'm a bit confused, reading through comments here, this seemed like some nefarious issue, reading the conversation thread in the op though it seems like an error with the .nomedia file in the folder that's fixed by either appending a second dot to the front of the file name or removing the file. I'm still unclear whether this was some intentional issue or an error. The fix seems easy enough, if a bit opaque and non-obvious. That thread's also from September, does this issue still exist?

l33tman 6y ago
Yes this thread is just by people not actually reading the thread in the top in combination with a misleading support article subject..

amelius 6y ago

Wait a second, does the app know that I'm taking a screenshot?

smadge 6y ago
Yes. For example when you take a screenshot of a message in Snapchat, the sender is notified.
- amelius 6y ago
  This sucks and I consider this a serious breach of privacy.
  - fwip 6y ago
    It's a feature to protect the sender's privacy.
    - bloodorange 6y ago
      by violating the receiver's privacy?
      - fwip 6y ago
        Yes.

dvduval 6y ago

I will especially hate this when I'm trying to translate something. If I can't copy and paste text into a translate app, the next step would be to take a screenshot and then use OCR. Of course if I'm really determined there are ways to still do a translation. I can only imagine what sort of problem is mighy arise for someone with accessibility issues.

heavyset_go 6y ago

Anti-trust action against Google and Apple for holding the mobile OS and app distribution market hostage for over a decade cannot come fast enough.

m4rtink 6y ago

Today they take away the ability to make screenshots - what will they take away next ? Being able to run your own scripts and binaries ?? No! They already took that away in Android 10... https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/wiki/Termux-and-Android-10 https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/wiki/Termux-and-An...

JaceLightning 6y ago

Fake news. Been on Android 11 for awhile. Take screenshots every day.

5droid 6y ago

Maybe should downgrade the android version. https://5droid.com/fl-studio-mobile/ https://5droid.com/fl-studio-mobile/

aitchnyu 6y ago

Tangential, but after copying an URL in MS Teams, I can only paste it to another MS app. Pasting it anywhere gives a "your org doesnt allow this lol". I cant open links unless I installed Edge. How did MS get such powers in Android?