I think the point extends well beyond the specific app/OS example though, even though the article talks to macOS exclusively. For macOS and Windows there are built in tools which offer direct recording functionality. To trigger on macOS Command+Shift+5 (or launch it via QuickTime as jasonlotito noted), on Windows Win+Shift+S. Both of these utilize the same OS APIs OBS Studio uses to get the screen content, but they skip the step of needing a renderer at all.
You need to install a 3rd party software Blackhole to even get desktop audio for screen recording with QuickTime. After about an hour of troubleshooting settings I gave up and used OBS, esp since I was in a public space at the time and the Blackhole config disabled my headphones and for a moment you could hear a loud YouTube tutorial playing through my Mac speakers. Also the shortcut to stop screen recording on QuickTime sucks, it’s like CMD+CTRL+ESC and you need to have it memorized because there’s no “Stop Recording” button option
I've had a lot of issues using the QuickTime screen recorder, especially when it comes to recording from an iOS simulator for app/game development and needing to produce preview videos.
It's still not a good idea. Analysts may attempt to de-cloak the word with varying degrees of success by analyzing the width of the redacted word against font character widths and using techniques from the study of Natural Language Processing to identify likely word candidates that fit in context (e.g., with respect to the rest of the sentence or document).
Call my cynical, but "hiring" a bunch of infosec celebrities and critics as part-time consultants or contractors should be considered nothing but a (brilliant and silencing) PR move until the day that product updates and analyses reveal otherwise.
> until the day that product updates and analyses reveal otherwise.
The product (and their poor installer practice) has been updated several times in the past few months alone, and each move has made Zoom a more secure product, with the vast majority of the hubbub having been addressed. So are you simply ignoring that, or are you setting your own personal goalposts?
I'm doing neither. I'm pointing out a logical fallacy in the parent comment. Hiring people part-time and buying a company does not, on its own, convey anything about improvements to product quality, security, or the corporate culture of either. I can only infer from your comment that you might think I have some beef or issue with Zoom. I said no such thing.
At this point, I'm confused, and I'm not sure what point you or the other commenter are looking for me to concede. Zoom is paying some security consultants, pushed out some product updates, and bought Keybase, so it's a story book ending?
Just as your comment was aiming to narrowly point out a logical fallacy in the parent comment, I'm pointing out a flaw in your own: I disagree with your claim that investing in security practices is just theater, and that more concrete efforts in the same direction are irrelevant. The concrete efforts are Bayesian evidence that the newer investments are more than theater.
You said that those things are theater until the day the product updates. We are beyond the day when that happened. So for it to be a fallacy you have to reject the context in which it was presented, which nobody but you is doing.
I am not looking for you to concede anything. You said nothing has been done to show you that the calculus of their priorities has changed and I listed some things that could possibly show that. It’s up to you if you believe that is significant enough to convince you.
Frankly, I don’t care if it does or not. I was just providing some visible signs of investment.
In addition to Vault, an administrator can easily set up an SMTP route through the admin interface to copy-and-forward all inbound or outbound mail (delivering copies wherever they please). Of course, this would only catch messages sent or received after setting up the route.
Edit: an administrator can also create an API token with org-wide credentials, allowing her to read, write, and delete messages from any user's inbox.
So there are no gay flight attendants? There isn't an overrepresentation of gay people within flight service?
I didn't say all flight attendants are gay – this is obviously not the case. But some are, and I've met quite a few of them. And if I try to average out their voice and mannerisms in my mind, it leads me to a sonic place that's close to this voice.
We’re not talking about the same thing. There are likely gay people in nearly every occupation. That you think you can tell by their voice is ignorant and prejudicial.
One probably can’t tell that with 100% precision, but the brain is a fantastic statistical prediction device that is specifically wired to make deep inferences from vocal patterns. I would imagine the correlation between “gay” vocal characteristics and actual homosexuality is close to 1.
I’m not a fan of these kind of characterizations. I can think of two things that make someone obviously gay: (1) they tell you, or (2) you see that person engaging in homosexual conduct.
Nearly anything else is probably a prejudicial stereotype.
This is indeed a complex theme, in part because how it is linked to negative stereotypes and in part because people might not realize they are sometimes reinforcing the negativity in them.
It is not controversial to say that an obvious metalhead is indeed a metalhead.
Also I would like to point out that "(2) you see that person engaging in homosexual conduct" is not that much of a silver bullet here, as bisexual and trans people exist too :)
Also sometime it is not hard to know more someone that they know themselves, I had a couple friends that were known to be gay before they knew themselves. And also "a very obvious gay male" does not mean homosexual to many people, in the last years society and the internet became much more mature in distinguishing masculine/effeminate stereotypes from actual sexual orientations. I have no idea of what went through GP minds, but I believe that being able to separate the "very obvious gay" from a description of a sexual orientation into a personality trait can be very beneficial for society in the long term.
If I can say it another, simpler way: I decide when and what I do with my body and what that makes me. No stranger’s perception nor insistence can change that. However, repeatedly being subjected to such judgements over subconscious or natural expressions of behavior, whether voice, gait, etc., is a vehicle for psychological harm, much like gas lighting.
You can absolutely decide what you do with your body, but what it makes you is not solely your decision. Like it or not, what we are labeled as is partially determined by what society thinks we are.
Here is an extreme example to prove this. I can say that I am a chair, and I can argue this until I'm blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that others will think that I am a human, not a chair. More relevant to the conversation, let's say I am a man that only has relationships with other men. I can call myself straight all I want, but if I tell other people about my behavior, they will categorize that behavior by the behavior(homosexual), thus it will not always align with the categorization that I apply to myself(straight). Okay or not, it is human nature to behave this way.
Sure, but I was more responding to your post above saying "I decide when and what I do with my body and what that makes me. No stranger’s perception nor insistence can change that." The perception of others does affect a persons categorization. Humans also categorize based on stereotypical behavior of things within a category, eg. lisp and swaying gate in gay men, long hair and lowered muscle mass in women, etc. These are all stereotypes that are found in a higher density within those categories, and often people within those categories change their behavior to align more with those categories(women intentionally growing hair out and wearing makeup) to accent category projection and improve accurate category interpretation in others(that is a woman). In this way, stereotypes aren't always prejudicial, it's more of the rigidity of the category interpretation that makes something bad, such as saying all men with lisps are gay, which is wrong.
I know this is quite a bit, but the main point I'm trying to make is that there is nuance in this conversation. Categorizations aren't always evil(though they can be), and are important social signals in our society.
I know what’s real and I know people both gay and not gay (both adult and children) that have to deal with prejudicial treatment simply because of how they “sound”. But please, continue to defend yourself judging people or putting them in a box over something so superficial if you like—just don’t expect anyone to find it endearing.
I upvoted you because I truly believe this is today still a serious problem, but I also want to defend the complete opposite views because I believe they can lead to a better solution.
There is a publicly recognized stereotype of gay man (essentially Jack from Will & Grace) which is not a faithful depiction of many homosexual men, I find wrong to assume that it is indeed faithful (all gay man are like that and vice versa). What I think will be a solution to this prejudice is not negating the stereotype but divorcing it from the actual sexual orientation of the individual.
I believe that many heterosexual males would be more comfortable with a more effeminate personality and that an homosexual can be at any point of the "virility" spectrum, still the spectrum exist.
I'm making no such defense. But since you are no longer being rational at this point I'll just say that speech is used to communicate your identity, and to ignore that idea is more harmful than to understand it.
> since you are no longer being rational at this point
I am not who you are answering to. I don't think purple-dragon is being irrational here, you initial comments were easy to misunderstand and negative stereotypes of homosexuality are still a problem today. Assuming goodwill I actually think that your comment had nothing wrong in it (assuming you do not actually think that that flight attendant "must" be gay or that all gay behave like that), still purple-dragon is not wrong either in reading it as a negative depiction. Internet conversations are just hard...
You can pull the ripcord if you like, but I said nothing irrational. Some may purposely choose to express aspects of their identity through vocalization—I don’t disagree—but counter examples abound.
