Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

In need of security advice ...

<< < (3/5) > >>

Bamse:
I don't know Flickrs, Picasas or SmugMug security procedures but am almost sure anything not evolving her/you setting up own website is many times more secure - also if you don't trust them. Don't ever trust them too much btw ;) There are probably some good hosts and if you know Wordpress nothing bad will happen, not easily. But there are also crappy hosts and Wordpress does require maintenance. You must check them out in details before deciding, can be difficult - they are good at advertising and promises.

After that worry about people snatching pics.

barney:
Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order  :huh:?

It is an article of faith with me that anything tech can make, tech can break.

So the question of security becomes one of effort vs. return.

As was mentioned, screen capture is always a viable way to get an image.  However, screen capture produces an image somewhere between seventy (70) to 100 dpi - not certain about Linux, but don't think it's greater - which is a far cry from, say 1440 dpi, which would make the capture pretty much useless for offline purposes.

The purpose of security in this case is to make it reasonably difficult to obtain the original photo images.

The WP blog is hosted on one of my domains at HostGator, but will eventually be transferred to BD's domain once she decides upon a name and obtains it.  (Sidebar:  if another host would be more appropriate, that'd be fine.)  WP is marked so as to prevent search engine scanning - not reliable, but it's simple to configure and could possibly help ... at least it should do no harm.

If this were mine, I'd make access much more difficult, but this has to be done with BD's current knowledge in mind, as well as some degree of ease of use, i.e., as transparent to her as possible.  It also should be reasonably simple for her chosen friends to access, preferably view-only.

I've tried several plugins that reasonably protect within WP, but become ineffective as soon as the actual image - not the thumbnail - is displayed.

The rationale behind all this is that BD is considering the pros and cons of becoming a professional photog, so she needs some input from others on the pics she's taken.  Copyright(s), watermarks, and the like provide some degree of protection, of course, but not enough.

f0dder:
As was mentioned, screen capture is always a viable way to get an image.  However, screen capture produces an image somewhere between seventy (70) to 100 dpi - not certain about Linux, but don't think it's greater - which is a far cry from, say 1440 dpi, which would make the capture pretty much useless for offline purposes.-barney (January 01, 2011, 03:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
If you don't want images in the original resolution captured, don't put the original-res images online - simple as that.

Bamse:
Well I would then research photographer sites/forums. Others will have had the same concerns and worries. They must know what is possible regarding watermarks - must be an essential part of the setup since she could be Worlds best photografer ever! For pro work watermarks is a must I would think. Digimarcs apparently don't work so what does? Is Digimarcs Rolls Royce of watermarks or surpassed long ago?

Lowering quality of images might be not be optional for pixel freaks like she probably is but of course if not available there is nothing to steal. That will work  8)

f0dder:
Even if you watermark photos, what are you going to do when somebody misuses them?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page