121–130 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people might want it, but it doesn’t actually work. It’s probably also required by some compliance theater in some places.
> Some people might want it, but it doesn’t actually work Why do you think they can't prevent on-device screenshots/screen recording can't be prevented when you control the entire stack?
LOL Another stupid feature (enforced by regulations/law/policies) that has no real world use, besides making us users angry :-( Like Google collecting all of our location history for their own usage, but not allowing us to see it via web anymore (only on mobiles), or having the android dialer not allowing us to record our own phone conversation (easily circumvented), or movie/music/game publishers not allowing us to…
> All these are due to laws and regulations that are there to protect the big companies and don’t take into consideration users This feature is not due to laws and regulations. The user in this case is the presenter who clicks the button to enable screenshot protection on their meeting. This is Microsoft trying to deliver a feature their users want , not laws and regulations making them do something their users don’t…
It is security theater at its peak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All these are due to laws and regulations that are there to protect the big companies and don’t take into consideration users This feature is not due to laws and regulations. The user in this case is the presenter who clicks the button to enable screenshot protection on their meeting. This is Microsoft trying to deliver a feature their users want , not laws and regulations making them do something their users don’t…
There isn’t a single user (presenter) that would ask something like this. Only a presenter that has to follow some strict “high security” procedures would enable something like this. A politician, for example, will have an excuse in case something leaks. The fact that with a simple mobile having a camera you can copy whatever is being presented (or with slightly more technical ways) is irrelevant for laws and procedu…
Any security feature that can be totally defeated with a spicy HDMI splitter and a 2nd computer should not exist. This stuff looks much more to me like "fuck the user" than anything else. I am 100% convinced there is a cult of evil bastards at Microsoft, et. al. that is hellbent on making everyone's UI/UX as janky as possible.
Yea, this sounds like "Microsoft teams no longer supporting video on Linux and old versions of mac/windows" more than anything
I wonder how it will work. The article sounds like it just overrides the print screen button. But what about screen recording apps like OBS? Seems like Teams would need to inject some code deep into the os to block that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kind of like locks isn't it? It'll deter honest folks, but will it prevent screen capture when Teams is running in a VM? What about over VNC?
What about a camera? These aren't the use cases that really matters. What matters is the common case, and it's not about deterring honest folks. Honest folks aren't recording. This is really a lesson in security blind spots. The number of people that are trying to "get around this" assuming that's the issue. Edit: I'll make it simple. It will work because honest people aren't trying to get around it. But, they could…
Honest folks who want to be able to cover their ass later on are.
Honest folks who are working for dishonest people and are planning to be a whistleblower are.
Honest folks who have Recall on are. Possibly against their will if they haven't found out how to turn it off, or it's a work machine where they're not allowed to do so. Maybe they're not if Microsoft actually has enough interdepartmental communication for the "no screenies please" signal to make it all the way to Recall. It'll be hilarious if they don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All these are due to laws and regulations that are there to protect the big companies and don’t take into consideration users This feature is not due to laws and regulations. The user in this case is the presenter who clicks the button to enable screenshot protection on their meeting. This is Microsoft trying to deliver a feature their users want , not laws and regulations making them do something their users don’t…
Some people might want it, but it doesn’t actually work. It’s probably also required by some compliance theater in some places.
I wonder how it will work. The article sounds like it just overrides the print screen button. But what about screen recording apps like OBS? Seems like Teams would need to inject some code deep into the os to block that.
I assume there are provisions for the same thing in all the other supported systems. Everyone without such support will get no video on the affected meetings.