5 ms·

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 And

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.
    - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
      Okay, here’s a question: why should third party screenshooting apps exist? What benefits do they offer over the stock functionality?
      - shawnz 6y ago
        Consider for example an app that lets you set triggers based on different events, like a hardware button remapping app or an IFTTT-style service. Should the user be able to program such an app to take screenshots?
      - indymike 6y ago
        Lots. Automatic watermarks. Automatic resizing. Different storage options, putting a phone frame around the screenshot, and lots of other things that are really user workflows. And that is the heart of the issue: when we restrict user workflows, we reduce the utility of the tool.
        WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
        Then make it a generic image editor. What we have now is: an editor but for screenshots, an editor but for selfies, an editor but for cat photos, each with its own cloud storage which leaks (or spills) data once a year and which data is also being processed by the app owners in ways you’d be disgusted about. There’s a screenshot functionality in the OS and there’s a Share button which should work just as fine and be way more secure.
        indymike 6y ago
        The shot->image-process->save->share cycle takes user time, and is an inconvenience that some people will even pay money to avoid. Since we're talking about screenshots, we're actually talking about typically, developers, tech writers and marketers who are automating their day-to-day workflow.
        WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
  - db48x 6y ago
    It's a weird problem. Some application running on the device must accept some user event, such as a key press, mouse click or touch event and turn that in to a request for a screenshot. This is true regardless of operating system. I agree that it should always be possible for a physically present user to take a screenshot and save it, but how can the OS really know if its really the user initiating the action and not a malicious application?
    - _Microft 6y ago
      This exists on the web. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Event/isTrusted https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Event/isTru...
      - shawnz 6y ago
        Even if you can be sure that the event originated from a real user action, that doesn't tell you that the user did the action with the intention of taking a screenshot. For example, they could have been "clickjacked" into clicking the screenshot button.
    - JosephRedfern 6y ago
      The malicious application would have to be able to spoof user input, which would be an issue in itself.
      - IggleSniggle 6y ago
        It doesn’t need to spoof input, it just needs to be something the user wants to provide input for. That user input can then be trusted, and the malicious app can claim whatever it is doing was at the behest of its user, whether that is true or not.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - dsego 6y ago
    @db48x > but how can the OS really know if its really the user initiating the action and not a malicious application? Isn't it sort of a responsibility of an "operating system" to know that stuff?
- pengstrom 6y ago
  This seems simple enough to solve. Display a modal when screenshoting apps marked as "secure", requiring user intervention. If it appears without your input, simply dismiss it and block the screenshot. This allows users to screenshot when they want to.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    I like that solution. Although it doesn't solve the Snapchat use case, but maybe that is a good thing.
icegreentea2 6y ago
The "least shitty" reason is to enable stuff like snapchat, and to bring some sense of ephemeralism to content.
floatingatoll 6y ago
Apps are alerted on iOS, too. Have been for years.
- bdcravens 6y ago
  Yes, but fortunately the apps on iOS can't block an OS-level feature, only take action in their app
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    https://screenshieldkit.com/ https://screenshieldkit.com/ doesn’t seem to agree, though I have no idea if they’re still effective two years later.
    - bdcravens 6y ago
      As best I understand it, it's still working at the app level, making the screenshot you grab an empty image
kllrnohj 6y ago
The app isn't alerted. Rather apps can indicate they have sensitive information via FLAG_SECURE. This is useful in preventing things like your bank account information from persisting in the recents snapshots. Why this blocks manual screenshots with no override though is bonkers insane. But likely a case of an incomplete feature than malice as it's not unreasonable to assume both entry points for screenshots hit the same internal path.
- Spivak 6y ago
  > Why this blocks manual screenshots with no override though is bonkers insane Because they don’t want sensitive information persisting in your camera roll.

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.
  - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
    Okay, here’s a question: why should third party screenshooting apps exist? What benefits do they offer over the stock functionality?
    - shawnz 6y ago
      Consider for example an app that lets you set triggers based on different events, like a hardware button remapping app or an IFTTT-style service. Should the user be able to program such an app to take screenshots?
    - indymike 6y ago
      Lots. Automatic watermarks. Automatic resizing. Different storage options, putting a phone frame around the screenshot, and lots of other things that are really user workflows. And that is the heart of the issue: when we restrict user workflows, we reduce the utility of the tool.
      - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
        Then make it a generic image editor. What we have now is: an editor but for screenshots, an editor but for selfies, an editor but for cat photos, each with its own cloud storage which leaks (or spills) data once a year and which data is also being processed by the app owners in ways you’d be disgusted about. There’s a screenshot functionality in the OS and there’s a Share button which should work just as fine and be way more secure.
        indymike 6y ago
        The shot->image-process->save->share cycle takes user time, and is an inconvenience that some people will even pay money to avoid. Since we're talking about screenshots, we're actually talking about typically, developers, tech writers and marketers who are automating their day-to-day workflow.
        WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
- db48x 6y ago
  It's a weird problem. Some application running on the device must accept some user event, such as a key press, mouse click or touch event and turn that in to a request for a screenshot. This is true regardless of operating system. I agree that it should always be possible for a physically present user to take a screenshot and save it, but how can the OS really know if its really the user initiating the action and not a malicious application?
  - _Microft 6y ago
    This exists on the web. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Event/isTrusted https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Event/isTru...
    - shawnz 6y ago
      Even if you can be sure that the event originated from a real user action, that doesn't tell you that the user did the action with the intention of taking a screenshot. For example, they could have been "clickjacked" into clicking the screenshot button.
  - JosephRedfern 6y ago
    The malicious application would have to be able to spoof user input, which would be an issue in itself.
    - IggleSniggle 6y ago
      It doesn’t need to spoof input, it just needs to be something the user wants to provide input for. That user input can then be trusted, and the malicious app can claim whatever it is doing was at the behest of its user, whether that is true or not.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dsego 6y ago
  @db48x > but how can the OS really know if its really the user initiating the action and not a malicious application? Isn't it sort of a responsibility of an "operating system" to know that stuff?
pengstrom 6y ago
This seems simple enough to solve. Display a modal when screenshoting apps marked as "secure", requiring user intervention. If it appears without your input, simply dismiss it and block the screenshot. This allows users to screenshot when they want to.
- shawnz 6y ago
  I like that solution. Although it doesn't solve the Snapchat use case, but maybe that is a good thing.

icegreentea2 6y ago

The "least shitty" reason is to enable stuff like snapchat, and to bring some sense of ephemeralism to content.

floatingatoll 6y ago

Apps are alerted on iOS, too. Have been for years.

bdcravens 6y ago
Yes, but fortunately the apps on iOS can't block an OS-level feature, only take action in their app
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  https://screenshieldkit.com/ https://screenshieldkit.com/ doesn’t seem to agree, though I have no idea if they’re still effective two years later.
  - bdcravens 6y ago
    As best I understand it, it's still working at the app level, making the screenshot you grab an empty image

kllrnohj 6y ago

The app isn't alerted. Rather apps can indicate they have sensitive information via FLAG_SECURE. This is useful in preventing things like your bank account information from persisting in the recents snapshots. Why this blocks manual screenshots with no override though is bonkers insane. But likely a case of an incomplete feature than malice as it's not unreasonable to assume both entry points for screenshots hit the same internal path.

Spivak 6y ago
> Why this blocks manual screenshots with no override though is bonkers insane Because they don’t want sensitive information persisting in your camera roll.