351–359 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By "isn't trivial", I mean that takes real effort on the user end to bypass (as they can't simply take screenshots in traditional methods). Bad choice of word on my end
They have absolutely no way to enforce anything of sorts on linux, technically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who completely misunderstand the value of friction, and those who depend on friction too heavily; GP clearly falls into the former group. This feature provides value because it increases friction. It won't stop really determined and motivated users from leaking, but it'll make leaks, especially accidental leaks / those due to hacks, a lot less common. The same applies…
I work in security. I have had customers request this feature. I have asked them to do an anonymous survey of users to ask what action they would take if they were blocked from taking screenshots and users universally say they’d take a picture of their screen with their phone. I don’t underestimate friction, I just know even my grandma would reach for her camera for a picture of her screen and she doesn’t even know w…
Awesome, this was really needed. No, this isn't a "security" feature and it obviously can be easily circumvented. The reason this is useful is to make it extremely clear to participants that the contents should not be shared by them.
I think this would be true if this feature was optional. Then if a particular meeting had it on then you would think twice about capturing the content, but if it's always on even on some team games night then its devalued.
I get that it’s basically impossible to enforce but who are all these people that screencap stuff from Teams meetings? Why do you need to do that? Can you not get the actual material you’re capping via somebody emailing/sharing the actual file? If not, why? Are you not allowed to access it? Or are you all just taking candids of your coworkers for your own devious purposes?
I rigged up a Mac Shortcut with the Extract Text from Screenshot feature so if I see someone visit a URL or display an error message, I can copy the text from the shared screen instead of asking them to paste it into the chat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nah, this would stop a lot of threats. I'm an example of that threat. I'm a freelancer who often has video calls with new clients. Sometimes I surreptitiously screen cap demos or presentations. It would be very difficult to use a phone that way without breaking the conversational flow. Other supposed workarounds would require much more preplanning. Like I'd need to know that there was something worth capturing.
I have a systemd timer that clean files older than 24h at startup because the point is not to archive content without consent.
If I ever can't do that I would just use an usb3 screen capture card and record from a second device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We once had an intern who took screenshots of an internal presentation and posted them on the internet to brag about how cool his internship was. When we did his exit interview he admitted he just wasn’t thinking. He did it all in a couple minutes while in the meeting. Something like this would have stopped him in the process and made him remember that the content was sensitive. Don’t underestimate the diversity of t…
Yes, this is a great example of why a control like this is useful. People do dumb things. The fact that it won't prevent a determined attacker isn't the point.