Please RT if you have enough expertise to understand why blocking screenshots is a pointless, silly feature for a secure messenger.
If I were a founder of @snap I would, considering how much money they made.
-
-
that's not a secure messenger.
-
Snapchat could become a secure messenger at any time. People like that feature, even understanding it isn't perfect.
-
you're right. Poor wording. You understand what I was going for, right? How would you put it?
-
pointless and silly SECURITY feature perhaps?
-
The only way it can be presented as a security feature is if taking screenshots by accident is a common problem.
-
right! And: it is not.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They're basically security theater, and their absence doesn't make an app insecure.
-
Whether or not a feature is profitable has very little to do with its security.
-
That's not the question that was asked. Developers of secure messengers need money.
-
It's pointless and silly for the stated goal of making a messenger secure.
-
Claiming "Signal is insecure because it doesn't block screenshots" like journos did is patently stupid.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you. This thread isn't about Signal, AFAIK.
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.