4 ms·

All seems very pointless when you can 1) Take a screenshot, or 2) take a photo of it. Once you give someone the ability to see or hear something, there is no g

All seems very pointless when you can 1) Take a screenshot, or 2) take a photo of it. Once you give someone the ability to see or hear something, there is no guaranteed way to take it back. I say this because: "You revoke access to anyone in the future that even if they have the image, without the privilege, the file is useless"

VuongN 13y ago
Even the foremost thinker in security, Dan Geer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Geer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Geer), once said: "...The most serious attackers will probably get in no matter what you do. At this point, the design principal, if you’re a security person working inside a firm, is not no failures, but no silent failures." In the same respect, you can't really stop people from taking screenshots or take a photo of... a photo. What we do is we put a watermark of the recipient in the image. This way, if that image get released anywhere, you knew who was the culprit and you can take further actions. No box is ever impenetrable, then the next best thing is to know when, what, why, whom of the penetration. I hope that helps. It is a difficult problem to solve, however, we have to do something! Thank you for your thoughts. -V.
- thiloberlin 13y ago
  A watermark won't help me with at an anonymous service like snapchat.
darkarmani 13y ago
That sounds like a DMCA violation and so does telling other people how to circumvent a copyright protection mechanism.