[freehunter]

It's fairly expensive (processing and storage), but it's well worth it for secure environments. I've worked for companies who have this set up on their Windows Server environment (since they were administered through the remote GUI) and SSH logging for the Unix/Linux servers when running as root.

[jonknee]

Expensive? 1 image a minute for a 40 hour work week is 2,400 images or 120k a year. We're talking screenshots so they aren't large files (you don't need a high bit rate), probably in the range of 500KB which would mean a whole year is less than 60GB. 3TB hard drives cost ~$130 these days and have room to store 50 employee years of screenshots. If money is that tight you can always compress the images and get double or more for your cash.

As for processing, you need to find a new computer if you can notice a screenshot being taken.

[bigiain]

"3TB hard drives cost ~$130 these days and have room to store … "

No trying to call out jinknee specifically, but I often see this argument:

"But storage only costs ~$50/TB!",

and I read:

"here's someone who's got no idea - who's never seen what 'enterprise' pays for proper secured/redundant/backed-up/auditable/managed storage."

Does anyone _really_ think sending the IT department junior round to BestBuy to grab ~$400 worth of external USB drives would then let you say "Right, that's then next 5 years worth of storage and archive of high-security and potentially-lawsuit-relevant employee data sorted!"?

[freehunter]

If you're talking bare minimum, yeah. The software solution this company had wasn't quite that barebones. It was a robust suite, and actually did take some planning on the desktop and server side to set aside resources for it.

The software was part of a package that managed software installs as well.