Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rbecker 2056 days ago
It was a bug - this time. It's not your phone, you're just using it.
1 comments

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.
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.
Signal app on Android blocks screenshots too (configurable). Does that mean that they are clueless about security?
Signal does not pretend that it will stop the other side from screenshotting your messages.
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.
It would still be possible to use external camera to capture the content.
local public transport service uses this block for their app. To make it harder to casually fake app tickets.
> prevent screenshotting licensed content. [..] good for 99% of the people

Is this a parody, or do you truly think DRM is good?

They may mean that it stops 99% of people.
>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?

Why would the user want DRM.
In general paying content producers allows them to produce more content. If it's neutral for the (legitimate) end user, but positive for the creator, why would you not use it?
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.

> 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.

DRM enables consenting relationships between content creators and consumers. There's no need for you to interfere other people's relationships.
For values of "consent" that amount to "we can do whatever we damn well please to you, take it or leave it."
So when media and technology conglomerates conspire to include unasked-for, unadvertised DRM on consumer devices, that's "consenting relationships".

When I point out consumers are harmed by this, that's "interference".

Can it prevent the user from taking a photo of the phone screen with a different device?
It does not prevent, but most people will not bother.
if you let people like the user above you have their way without offering strong condemnation and resistance, it will eventually happen, yes