Many people are babies.
Despite the intense training and constant warnings, it happens constantly. And that’s just the cases they know about and address.
You have to be able to trust your staff, but you also have to be realistic that any organization at scale will have people who either don’t care or don’t think and it happens frequently.
1) Prevent the patients from suing after a data breach or intentional sale of their medical records, regardless of negligence.
2) Transfer as much money as possible from health care to privately owned businesses in the compliance industry.
Very few computer security lessons from that industry generalize to other parts of the economy.
I suppose if the presenter wants no screenshots they’d also want cameras on and you’d have to be pretty sly about using your phone.
Either way, dumb. The analog hole can’t be closed.
This is like a watermark on a PDF. Not some impossible to circumvent security protocol.
It’s an option the presenter can turn on when needed.
If you need the data from the presenter to do your job, presumably you’d contact them and ask.
Businesses want to control everything, so this will become a common default for people to use. It’ll be embedded in all sorts of company policies and I wouldn’t be surprised if Teams clients in some corporate domain can set it as a default option to help promote the policy (by default block screenshots on all our presentations to reduce liability risks).
If it’s like a paper, some data advertised, or some significant work that’s when you generally want and need to contact the author.
So it’s something critically important for you to get your job done, but also something that’s not worth writing a couple sentence e-mail about, but also going to block your work while you sit around and wait all day for it?
Communication is the foundation of any office job. If you’re in a meeting with these people, just ask in the meeting? If you can’t, send an email during the meeting and you haven’t lost any time. It’s really not as hard as you’re trying to make it sound.
I generally discourage people from using ChatGPT for office communication, but to be honest if writing a simple e-mail request to get something you need for your job triggers this level of overthinking, you might benefit from letting it at least draft the email to get you started and past the analysis paralysis.
Overwhelmingly, people who speak in favor of windows, grew up using it. It's like the indoctrination of any religous cult, it works best when you start young.
One has to wonder when the world will recover from windoze brain damage...
The resultant windoze brain damage is a co-mingling of "you don't know what you don't know", lack of awareness of just how varied computer interfaces could be, with the "child indoctrination" aspect that nothing else seems quite right when it's not what you were raised on.
After my first programming experiences, on a TRS-80 in the mall radio shack in the late '70s, I was exposed to a variety of user interfaces, but eventually became locked into windows myself, mostly from employer enforcement.
The thing that drove me away in the end was the way various settings were moved around with each new release, and the way my workflow had to constantly adapt to arbitrary changes in the user interface with each revision.
After exploring a wide variety of desktop environments, I've been on fluxbox window manager for many years now and I'm still quite satisfied. All of my configuration options are in my home directory, and my user interface experience is recreated without incident when updating, and even when moving to new h/w.
But the monoculture is wide spread, and continues to inhibit computer innovation outside of what will benefit the mothership...
The main vendor locking practice of M$, has been to cut deals w/ h/w makers to preinstall windoze on their new computers.
This caused many many more people to face childhood indoctrination into windoze than into macOS.
Tangentially, over many years apple was a less malicious company than M$, but that advantage has waned in recent years.
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.
These kinds of measures only stop the good guys from doing their jobs. The bad guys put way too much effort into espionage for this to work.
It exist to make the easiest way impossible and to tell participants that the content should not be shared by them.
For sensitive data on the other hand quality doesn't matter as long as it's readable.
Making something more difficult is okay to claim in my view, but trying to over-state capabilities or security concerns is problematic.
> These kinds of measures only stop the good guys from doing their jobs. The bad guys put way too much effort into espionage for this to work.
This is for preventing casual screenshots and reminding average office workers that meeting content is sensitive. It’s not an iron-clad tool for defeating dedicated espionage involving hidden pinhole cameras.
There have been similar arguments for ages about how if something isn’t iron-clad perfect protection then it’s pointless, but in the real world making something more difficult actually makes people think twice and stops most of the people who would casually do it.
See for example Snapchat’s screenshot notifications. It’s well known that there’s an elaborate way to circumvent it. However the fact that it takes a lot of work and there’s a risk of getting caught trying really hard to deceive the other party is enough to make most people not want to risk it.
Pedantic correction:
'grab a shot of the monitor out of frame of the webcam of the person wanting to take screenshots of the meeting'.
First time I read it I was somehow imagining breaking of laws of physics lmao.
I suppose the biggest irony of this is, most of the shops that might want to enable this are already so sloppy that they half expect folks to screenshot teams presentations for notes later.
Users have to resort to (exclusively, if possible) open source tools.
Not surprised at all that MS is doing this.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/...
What a waste of developers resources.
So from a employee POV it has its uses.
But people who will get in the same situation like me could simply use the camera on their phone pointed at the screen and be done with it, I guess.
I payed for my device, it is mine, it is up to me to decide whatever I'll do with it. It is my right under the private ownership definition. The current situation on modern devices, especially smartphones, is ridiculous and a complete distortion of rights that are fundamental even for the roots of capitalism.
Users should organize and, at the least, avoid using such services even if it means to lose some convenience. Losing my freedom is not a fair price to pay for such conveniences.
This is going to block a valid use of screen recording and I wonder if it would violate A.D.A. requirements
* paying for professional human captioning of the meetings you're in (automated captions are not accurate enough to be relied on) * the host using Teams' own recording system and providing only you with the recording, maybe only the audio
i don't see why would you want to enable this, unless you have BYOD allowed
That being said - guessing they are doing this for their enterprise customers mainly, where alot of those other options are locked down. But plenty of people already know to just record their screen from their phone anyway - impossible to block that and much safer way to exfiltrate whatever info/data you need.
Seems like it’s even easier, just join the meeting via browser.
I’m not familiar with a way to enforce this type of restriction in the browser.
> The company plans to start rolling out this new Teams feature to Android, desktop, iOS, and web users worldwide in July 2025.
OTOH we will see if there's any type of weasel-wording on whether browser is in fact non-supported (i.e. will go to audio-only mode.)
The other possibility, is that every 'supported' platform has some form of DRM that results in the functionality working even on browser (just thinking out loud about DRM functionality possibilities) means Windows/MacOS/Android/iOS all work but everyone else is out of luck.
They will just make photos using their phones.
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 backup our own media… you get the point.
All these are due to laws and regulations that are there to protect the big companies and don’t take into consideration users and the common sense ;-)
Because if we shut it all down, a huge chunk won’t start up, and humanity gains huge amounts of electricity generation back, but somewhat more importantly: maybe we could stop carrying smartphones!
(This is mostly in jest, here’s a “/s” for those who can’t tell)
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 want.
Why do you think they can't prevent on-device screenshots/screen recording can't be prevented when you control the entire stack?
Edit: But yeah, nothing to say why it can't work. So, yeah.
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 still expose data they shouldn't. This helps prevent that. Again, a camera is enough to prove it doesn't need to be 100% perfect (and probably more honest considering screenshots can be faked).
So, instead of trying to think of how you can exploit, think of all the ways this private information can get out when it shouldn't and the people on the call aren't trying to release it. Work through that, and see where you get.
Asking participants not to screen record or take screenshot was standard practice at every company I’ve worked at where we discussed anything like financials or sensitive business plans.
That you think the only attack vector here is a 3rd party device means you haven't really considered everything. Consider screenshots that might happen for many reasons, including malicious software, or even normal software someone might be using, and accidental exposure.
Stop making up laws and regulations that dont exist.
Or, you know, just take a picture of the screen with your phone.
Or record the session, or film it, etc etc etc
The only real practical gain is that it might prevent malware from being able to capture visible data, but what's funny about that is one of the desktop systems that can prevent unwanted screen capture by design (Wayland) also intentionally doesn't have any support for DRM/HDCP features, so it will likely be stuck on audio-only mode. High five, Microsoft!
* I wanted to go to the source directly to check if maybe they just left it out, but the link that they currently have seems to be non-sense. It seems to point to something about "Co-pilot" audio transcription. In Romanian, for whatever reason.
https://www.microsoft.com/ro-ro/microsoft-365/roadmap?id=490...
bob1029•2h ago
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.
Xelynega•2h ago
shim__•1h ago
raverbashing•2h ago
constantcrying•2h ago
It is essentially like a watermark in a PDF. It can be trivially defeated, but that isn't the point.
import•2h ago
elmerfud•2h ago
It offers no meaningful protection to the organization itself. Anyone who's willing to violate a company policy that says not to record and share information this will not stop them or slow them down in the slightest. So it offers no protection at all.
It is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand and thinking it's safe. you continuing to spout this nonsense I'm not sure which is worse this policy thinking it protects people or people who actually believes at this would protect people.
ale42•1h ago
acchow•1h ago
timewizard•1h ago
I think this because our company recently enforced a 2 year mail deletion policy on all mailboxes for "legal reasons." Which were "we don't want stuff to show up in discovery if we get sued."
maxloh•1h ago
Streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus use these APIs to protect their content as well.
flutas•1h ago
I use a setup like this frequently for work to demo our Android TV based apps with full content even though it all has DRM applied. Always leads to a "how did you get this footage" line of questioning for anyone who knows that we use DRM.