321–330 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>to Android, desktop, iOS, and *web users* worldwide in July 2025.
... how?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And also gives legal teams more foundation to stand on, bypassing this isn't trivial so it shows real intent
"isn't trivial"? When the sibling comment mentions how a lot of employees will by default use a camera when asked for a screenshot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think using the word friction is good. If you want your business to run smoothly you should not apply friction. In-fact, you should be looking for places where there is fiction and apply lube. Either the information your are sharing is sensitive, or it is not. Applying friction to your colleges is just making their jobs more difficult.
Using your analogy one should lube the brake pads, after all friction is bad, isn't it? The friction here is on the "unwanted" path, and in a way provides "lube" (less thinking and care) for the correct security posture.
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.
It doesn't work against which threat model? Yeah, if you've got corporate espionage going on this isn't going to stop someone from lifting your slides and taking them elsewhere. But the most common culprit of corporate information security violations isn't a spy, it's a well-meaning employee who didn't hear, remember, or correctly interpret the request to not record the meeting. Blocking the most common way in which…
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?
>VM Yes, it will not be capturable. If the VM is not secure it will not display it. >VNC The VNC server will not be able to capture it.
I just fired up a linux vm, and hit play.
If this thing actually breaks machines that don’t have a properly configured hdcp chain, it’ll create insane “this meeting is broken” debugging scenarios.
Also, hdcp is trivially bypassed these days (if, for some reason a camera phone recording of the damning meeting isn’t enough, and a perfect digital copy is needed…)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not pure security theater, there are a few clear gains for those who care about such things: * Naive screencaps are much less traceable to the leaker than a naive photo is. Yes, someone can strip out EXIF data, but we've seen over and over again that they generally don't. And even without EXIF a naive framing on the photo is more likely to expose information about the location or identity of the person who took…
Good summary. It's best to think of controls like this as guardrails. They are mostly "safety" features rather than hard-core security features. They help honest people to avoid potentially dangerous mistakes.
They also can prevent honest people from gathering proofs to cover or defend themselves: abusive boss, illegal requests, harassment...
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…
But it’s literally the dumbest feature ever. There’s absolutely nothing preventing a user from pulling out their phone and taking a picture of any slide they want. Or having a camera recording the whole session out of view of their webcam. It is security theater at its peak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s funny that so many of these comments assume the person clicking the “enable screenshot protection” checkbox will be unaware that participants might have camera phones. It’s equally funny to read the comments imagining participants with elaborate pre-built workarounds like hidden pinhole cameras or pre-configured HDMI splitters going into full-screen video capture on another system. The people using this…
> It’s a feature for discouraging casual data capture and dissemination Casual is much easier with a phone. In Windblows to capture the screen you need to press print screen, then go to paint -> paste then save it. Paint cannot have 2 images open at the same time.
Win-Shift-S
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps a little less snark would be appropriate if you don't know what other people are talking about.
Apologies if I came across snarky, not my intention. It's definitely not true that this feature breaks support for devices not owned by the manufacturer. The follow on question about whether all possible web clients / operating systems would be supported, I don't know. The article just says that web is supported.
“Web is supported” in this instance just means “the web, but only when mediated by google, microsoft or apple”, which is not the web as far as I'm concerned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies if I came across snarky, not my intention. It's definitely not true that this feature breaks support for devices not owned by the manufacturer. The follow on question about whether all possible web clients / operating systems would be supported, I don't know. The article just says that web is supported.
This isn't “we haven't tested your browser, if it breaks, that's on you”, this is “we don't specifically Trust™ the environment you're running your browser in, therefore fuck you.” “Web is supported” in this instance just means “the web, but only when mediated by google, microsoft or apple”, which is not the web as far as I'm concerned.