Help if you can?

[Joseph Arseneau]

Hi, I am trying to disable the print feature and the print screen
feature while viewers are visiting certain areas of my site. I
understand this is not 100 percent secure, I just would like to make it
a little more difficult. Are there any scripts I could put into the
website that would disable this? Again...I understand there are plenty
of ways around this. Thanks for any help.

 

[Oliver Wong]

Hi, I am trying to disable the print feature and the print screen
feature while viewers are visiting certain areas of my site. I
understand this is not 100 percent secure, I just would like to make it
a little more difficult. Are there any scripts I could put into the
website that would disable this? Again...I understand there are plenty
of ways around this. Thanks for any help.

You'd probably have better luck using JavaScript rather than Java.

As an aside, I seriously doubt you can do anything about PrintScreen.

- Oliver

 

[Kristian Thy]

Quoth Joseph Arseneau:

I understand this is not 100 percent secure, I just would like to
make it a little more difficult.

Ignoring that you are in the wrong group, let me ask you: Why do you
hate your users so much?

\\kristian

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Kristian Thy coughed up:

Quoth Joseph Arseneau:

Ignoring that you are in the wrong group, let me ask you: Why do you
hate your users so much?

Someone that is selling artwork, or showcasing the photos they just took for
and to a customer would want to make it a little harder to grab the images.

But I agree with Oliver. I doubt there is anything that could reach from
the browser into the OS to disable the screen capture.

 

[Roedy Green]

But I agree with Oliver. I doubt there is anything that could reach from
the browser into the OS to disable the screen capture.

You see the same thing in PDF. The author can block copy/paste, but
you can still use Paint Stop Pro and do a screen region snap.

 

[hilz]

You see the same thing in PDF. The author can block copy/paste, but
you can still use Paint Stop Pro and do a screen region snap.

You don't even need "Paint Stop Pro" or anything extra. Just press
shift+Prnt Scrn and paste in ms paint.(talking windoz here)

 

[Andrew Thompson]

You don't even need "Paint Stop Pro" or anything extra. Just press
shift+Prnt Scrn and paste in ms paint.(talking windoz here)

I had problems with a variety of image that were touched
by MS Paint. A pox on MS Paint.

Personally I would use Robot to capture the screen and
Java to write the image. You can see an example that I
recently prepared to take a *series* of snapshots of
animated components for tips. Chase the links from..
<https://screensavers.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectForumMessageView?messageID=9258&forumID=698>

HTH

 

[Gordon Beaton]

Kristian Thy coughed up:

Someone that is selling artwork, or showcasing the photos they just
took for and to a customer would want to make it a little harder to
grab the images.

But I agree with Oliver. I doubt there is anything that could reach
from the browser into the OS to disable the screen capture.

I have seen artwork sites that open each image in its own window. When
the pointer leaves the window, it closes. Strictly speaking the site
does not disable the print and save buttons, but the image is gone
before you can reach them.

Of course a clever user can get the images in other ways (the browser
cache for example), but if you are simply trying to make it difficult,
then this is one way.

/gordon

 

[Andrew Thompson]

I have seen artwork sites that open each image in its own window. When
the pointer leaves the window, it closes. Strictly speaking the site
does not disable the print and save buttons, but the image is gone
before you can reach them.

You must be using the wrong browser, Gordon!

[ OK. It is dead easy to thwart your average IE user,
but *that* is a good example of the 'wrong browser' (for
end user control/empowerment). ]

 

[Hemal Pandya]

Someone that is selling artwork, or showcasing the photos they just took for
and to a customer would want to make it a little harder to grab the images.

Artwork and photo sites typically showcase samples in low-resolution.
Yes, they can still be stolen, but the quality is lost.

 

[Gordon Beaton]

You must be using the wrong browser, Gordon!

In that case, suggest a different one! I'm happy with the user
empowerment I currently get from Firefox, and it also happens to run
on all of the platforms I commonly use (Linux on 4 different cpu
architectures + Solaris).

And yes, I'm fully aware that these things can be circumvented.

/gordon

 

[Andrew Thompson]

In that case, suggest a different one! I'm happy with the user
empowerment I currently get from Firefox,

[1] Depends on the exact technique they are using, but
generally - disabling JS stops most rubbish, while if they
are both clever (and stupid) enough to *generate* the pages
with JS, you need to do a direct call for the script(s) and
hunt though the source. The deployer can then obfuscate it,
of course, but ..we are already in the realm of 'not easy'.

OTOH, I thought FF (or Mozilla based browsers in general)
had options for the end user to configure..
- Where new windows appear (floating/tabbed window).
- Whether scripts can close windows.

..and it also happens to run
on all of the platforms I commonly use (Linux on 4 different cpu
architectures + Solaris).

Yes. If I did not have to have such close knowledge of
IE, a Moz. based browser would be my choice. My choice
would probably be Mozilla itself.

There was a conversation recently that suggested that FF
in particualr was not especially good for
- *applet* developers, in that it only offers access to
the Java console if their is a broken applet in the page.
- web-developers, because it similarly hides (AFAIR) options
to get at the page source, and the JS console..

FF is more geared to the end user, than either Java (applet)
developers or web-application developers specifically.

And yes, I'm fully aware that these things can be circumvented.

Just pointing out that is is often simpler than it looks.

--
Andrew Thompson
physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com athompson.info
"The Generals gave thanks, as the other ranks held back the enemy tanks
...for a while."
Pink Floyd 'When The Tigers Broke Free'

 

[Oliver Wong]

There was a conversation recently that suggested that FF
in particualr was not especially good for
- *applet* developers, in that it only offers access to
the Java console if their is a broken applet in the page.
- web-developers, because it similarly hides (AFAIR) options
to get at the page source, and the JS console..

I've never had a problem access the page source from FireFox. In fact,
FF even offers syntax highlighting of the HTML source code, while IE shows
the sourcecode in Notepad (which obviously doesn't do syntax highlighting).

On the other hand, FF is particularly bad when working with XML and XSLT
documents, as I think FF caches everything in such a way so that even when
you modify the underlying files and force the browser to refresh (via F5 or
the menu), it still stubbornly uses the cached version.

So when I'm writing XML/XSLT documents, I develop with IE, and then only
at the end check if it still looks right in FireFox.

- Oliver

 

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

Someone that is selling artwork, or showcasing the photos they just
took for and to a customer would want to make it a little harder to
grab the images.

They are already "grabbed" by the HTTP GET action. You can't even know
if there is a browser at the other end to disable in any way.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Hemal Pandya coughed up:

Artwork and photo sites typically showcase samples in low-resolution.
Yes, they can still be stolen, but the quality is lost.

Or they also commonly throw in a hideous watermark right through the middle
of the thing.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen coughed up:

"Thomas G. Marshall"


They are already "grabbed" by the HTTP GET action. You can't even know
if there is a browser at the other end to disable in any way.

Of course. They're all just socket programs after all.