It might even be worth using a virtual background instead of something which reveals personal information. For others, it might be safer on balance to leave them out. For some organisations and individuals, there’s a valid use for the metadata dropped into the files. If this happened, would you have a way of being able to determine the truth of the matter? Or would you simply take their word for it? Weighing up the riskĪll good questions, and a valuable reminder to consider which videoconferencing tools you want to make use of. It’s also possible that someone with a grudge could leak something then pretend they’d been compromised. They may have used a fake identity, or even compromised a legitimate account in order to do the leaking. It’s possible the leaker may not care much if they're revealed. While the other concern of identifying the leaker is still important, your mileage may vary in terms of how useful it is, versus how much of an inadvertent threat it presents. There are so many variables at work, only the participants may know for sure. And if they can't, a well-known location, or a name-badge, could give them away. If they’re not normally a public facing persona, people could still find them via reverse image search or other matching tools. Is a public figure of some sort involved? The game is already lost. This is because people can be easy to identify visually. If Zoom content is shared online without permission, it may not matter much if revealing metadata is included, unless the video call is audio only. The Intercept explores ways this could cause problems where confidentiality is a concern. Audio watermarking is to allow you to figure out if someone is sharing without permission. You must ask Zoom to do this, and the clip has to be more than 2 minutes in length.Įssentially, video watermarking is to help you know who is sharing and talking during the call. Audio embeds the information of anyone recording the call into the audio, and Zoom lets you know who shared it. Video displays a portion of a user’s email address when someone is sharing their screen. Zoom allows for video and audio watermarking, with video of course being visual and so easier to spot. What the rest of the article is about, is theorising on the ways embedded metadata could cause issues for participants. The secret identity game was up regardless of what was under the hood. The people involved appear to be at least reasonably well known. The reveal happened because someone recorded a video call and dropped it online, with participant’s faces on display. You'd be forgiven for thinking the identity reveal referenced in the article had something to do with the watermarks, but no. The Intercept talks about accidental identity reveals, via data embedded into calls, in relation to the ever-present videoconferencing tool. And the visual side of this data is supposed to be viewable during the call. Watermarks aren't hidden-they're right there by design, if people choose to use them. Watermarking: what's the deal?Īn interesting story has recently emerged on The Intercept, of voluntary data (in the form of watermarks) wrapped into Zoom recordings, which could cause headaches in unexpected ways. We can see what happens when we deliberately enable a data / tagging related function. Now you have an idea what kind of things can lurk without knowledge. Some people may find this useful quite a few more may object to it as a creepy privacy invasion. For example, a mobile photography app or camera may embed GPS data by default. This is because it can reveal more than intended when it hits the public domain. Many tutorials exist to strip this information out. Often tied to photography mishaps, it can be timestamps. It becomes a problem when accidentally revealed. Metadata, which gives background information on pieces of data, is typically hidden.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |