3 ms·
You don't need to elaborate on mechanisms for bypassing because you're already imagining a threat actor that is out of scope. This is primarily about blocking
by lolinder 1y ago
You don't need to elaborate on mechanisms for bypassing because you're already imagining a threat actor that is out of scope.
This is primarily about blocking accidental leaks by regular employees who were asked to not record but ignored it. This kind of reuse of content happens all the time in companies of any significant size and isn't entirely stopped by simple requests or watermarks. This tool gives companies one more option to protect against this very lame and boring but also very real threat.
- preciousoo 1y agoAnd also gives legal teams more foundation to stand on, bypassing this isn't trivial so it shows real intent
- userbinator 1y ago"isn't trivial"? When the sibling comment mentions how a lot of employees will by default use a camera when asked for a screenshot?
- preciousoo 1y agoBy "isn't trivial", I mean that takes real effort on the user end to bypass (as they can't simply take screenshots in traditional methods). Bad choice of word on my end
- guappa 1y agoThey have absolutely no way to enforce anything of sorts on linux, technically.
- int_19h 1y agoA typical corporate workspace won't have any employees running Linux on their work machines.
- prmoustache 1y agoThat is not my experience in the last 10 years.
- crote 1y ago> This is primarily about blocking accidental leaks by regular employees who were asked to not record but ignored it. I think you're seriously overestimating regular employees. A significant number of people will send you smartphone pictures when you ask for a screenshot - why would they suddenly start looking into on-device screen capture when taking a picture or video of some random presentation?
- andrekandre 1y ago> A significant number of people will send you smartphone pictures when you ask for a screenshot n=1 but this is also my experience at $JOB for a majority of times for me as well
- lolinder 1y agoI already addressed this possibility in my first comment. Points 1+2.
- chii 1y ago> regular employees who were asked to not record i think this should not be possible to be asked. For example, an employee might want to record to cover their own ass (e.g., if being asked to do some morally questional things, which the employee could record then use as protection against the company going back on their word). Having the ability to _control_ whether an employee can keep records independently of the company only serves to move more control away from the employee.
- int_19h 1y agoTrade secrets are a thing. Legal requirements are a thing as well. In some cases (think HIPAA) an employee recording something that they're shown can translate to significant legal liability for both themselves and the company.