article The digital prison – a future of planned obsolescence, backdoors, screenshot blocking, and more.

[Ertio]

Preface

 

Originally, this post was only about screenshot blocking, but while writing it, more things came to my mind that I wanted to cover.

This post is not aimed at finding a way around screenshot blocking (this can be found elsewhere), but just to hear others' opinion on this.

 

If you wanted to convince someone a restriction you placed on them was for their benefit, how would you do it? You will find the answer in this post.

 

---

 

Your freedoms are being eroded.

 

It used to be a certainty that you can screenshot whatever you like. But on smartphones, this freedom is slowly being eroded. This year, WhatsApp started disallowing screenshots of profile pictures. I first thought this was a bug, but it quickly became clear that this is yet another nail in the coffin of freedom under the guise of protection.

 

They want to convince you this is intended to protect your privacy. In reality, it is glorified censorship. Plain and simple.

 

It is one of many things that take control away from you and puts it into the hand of the big corporations.

 

Screenshotting profile pictures is not a privacy violation. Anyone who didn't want their profile picture screenshotted shouldn't use that as their profile picture to begin with! Everyone knows they shouldn't put stuff in a visible spot on the Internet that they don't want copied. Copying is a basic part of how computers operate, and it can't be restricted without taking lots of freedom away in the process.

 

Copying Is Not Theft - Official Version

 

It's a bait-and-switch situation: First, they implement such restrictions under the blanket of privacy so people embrace them. Once people accept such restrictions, they also use them for other kinds of censorship like DRM (digital rights management), in other words, copyright tyranny.

 

The magic P word

 

Of course, they will call it "protection" because that word sounds nice. Remember the "protect intellectual property act" (PIPA) that would have massively censored the Internet in 2012? The bureaucrats tried to play the "protect" card but didn't get away with this one.

 

There are also other nice-sounding names for crippleware such as "add-on signing" and "web environment integrity API".

 

• Apple seized the ability to remotely delete apps as early as 2008, when the App Store was in its infancy. (news)
• In 2014, Android 4.4 KitKat brought severe restrictions on MicroSD card use with no setting to allow it again, so users had to root their phones if they wanted to use memory cards normally. Can you imagine the outrage if Microsoft did this on Windows to "protect the user"?
• In 2015, Mozilla added a backdoor to their browser and called it add-on signing to "protect the user". In reality, it takes much more protection away than it gives.

  Quote

It makes the user vulnerable to intrusions by Mozilla or by a government that might force Mozilla to censor unwanted extensions.

(source: change.org)

• Windows 10 added the infamous mandatory updates. Mandatory updates in any operating system are a de-facto backdoor.

Updates That DELETE ALL YOUR DATA - Jody Bruchon

• Since 2018, Chrome on Android no longer allows screenshots in incognito mode. Firefox later followed. Incognito mode is useful to see how websites appear to first-time visitors.
• In 2019, Google threatened to delete Kiwi Browser from its Play Store if it allowed background playback of YouTube videos (news). Hopefully this will cause people to download stuff, because videos can be taken down, and are taken down very often.

  Quote

Whenever I tell people that we need to plan for the day when YouTube goes offline, I mostly receive weird reactions. It seems to be the case that people can't think of YouTube being gone. Unfortunately, I'm convinced that most people will face the day when we lose this enormous library of videos.

(source: Karl Voit)

• In 2023, Google tried creating the "Web Environment Integrity API" (more details).
• The trend towards locked-down computers.
• Laptops with glued-in and soldered parts that can not be serviced by the end user.
• Some apps won't let you control your user data. For example, "Samsung Interent" stores saved pages in a private, locked-in location which is inaccessible to file managers. (more details)

  Quote

Very few apps support data exports; even fewer support it in an automatic and regular way. Normally, internally, apps keep their data in sqlite databases which is even more convenient than plaintext/csv export.

However, there are caveats: e.g. on Android, app data is in /data/data/ directory, which by default isn't accessible unless you rooted the phone.

(source: beepb00p.xyz)

• Installing software from any sources not controlled by the big corporations is being made more difficult, and vilified as oh-so-evil "sideloading".

All of this under the name of "protection".

 

They can call it what they want, sugarcoat it all they like, DRM is DRM.

 

Sharpen your ears for the word "protect". "Protect" is one of the most misused words in recent history. Remember, when a big corporation says they want to "protect" you, they want to "protect" their profits against you, or collect more data on you (phone verification to unlock Google account). You are a little ant from their point of view. Replace "protect" with "profit" or "restrict" in your mind.

 

Run this code in your brain:

input.replaceAll("protect","profit");

As always, if you want the highest protection possible, disconnect your Internet.

 

Your digital prison

 

The corporate masters are tightening the grip of what you are allowed to do with your device that you paid for. The trend is towards a locked-down "protected" babyphone. They glued the batteries in, added serial numbers, disallow normal repairing (they named it "unauthorized repair"), and now they are blocking screenshots in more and more places. You will be hitting the great wall of "sorry, you can't do this anymore" more and more often.

 

You are supposed to accept the belief that normal copying is "piracy" and therefore theft (refutation), and at the same time, they don't want you to have full control over something you bought and paid for. The frog is being boiled. (meaning of this phrase)

 

I am guessing that soon they will prevent private Instagram profiles from being screenshotted at all for supposed "privacy protection". Later, they will allow anyone to block screenshots of their Instagram postings, even though there are legitimate reasons to make such screenshots, such as preserving the memories of what someone posted. Again, if someone doesn't want that, they shouldn't post it in the first place.

 

But screenshot censorship is only possible because Google and Apple made it possible. On Windows and Linux, the ability to screenshot whatever you like - is sacred and untouched so far. These operating systems don't seem to be able to let software arbitrarily block you from screenshotting, but for how long? I am guessing Microsoft will eventually let programs block screenshots, given that Microsoft has done bad things in the past years, such as mandatory updates in Windows 10 and abolition of local-only accounts and offline setup in Windows 11.

 

Later, websites will be allowed to block screenshots too. For "privacy protection" and "copyright protection" of course.

 

By the way, WhatsApp is owned by data harvester Meta, the same company that runs Facebook. It seems hypocritical that they would want to "protect" user privacy when they happily collect massive amounts of data on their users. They want themselves to collect data, but they don't want you to be able to do the same. They want to be the only ones able to keep a record, not you. They want all the privilege for themselves only.

 

No one likes it, but we tolerate it because we depend on these things nowadays. The same happened with non-replaceable batteries. Once the majority of the population were dependent on smartphones, the manufacturers jumped on the planned obsolescence bandwagon of non-replaceable batteries.

 

"But You HAD A CHOICE And CHOSE To Use Windows (or macOS)" - Jody Bruchon

(The same applies to other locked-down operating systems or devices.)

 

Also, screenshot censorship promotes bullying. Since no record of the bullying can be created (at least not without workarounds), no evidence on the bullies can be collected, so the bullies can get away without consequences.

 

Sorry, I don't want to be "protected" from using my phone how I want it to use. I am no little baby who can't think for myself.

 

What will the future hold?

 

Will we soon see cameras being remotely disabled by authorities in a similar manner as screenshot blocking?

If this sounds like "just another crazy conspiracy" to you: Apple thought of this eight years ago (source

 

 

Not so unrealistic now, huh? If your little brain can think of it, so can big corporations.

 

Authoritarian governments like China could easily use this to cover up abuses by police (while they themselves happily spy on their citizens around the clock). And indeed, Apple has a cozy relationship to China's government:

 

ACTUALLY! Android is more private than the iPhone!

 

But that might not even be necessary, because propaganda can be used to convince people filming police officers on duty is a "violation of personality rights". This already happened in Germany, with state-sponsored propaganda movies like this one:

 

Schaulustige – Sei kein Gaffer

 

This propaganda film fooled millions into happily agreeing to the ban on filming the police, so any misuse of power they might commit will stay in the dark.

 

[I hereby release this post into the public domain, as described in CC0 1.0. You can repost this in full wherever you like! You don't even have to credit me.]

Edited just now by Ertio
typo, grammar, added video, archive link, mentioned sideloading, added picture