10 ms·
Microsoft Teams will soon block screen capture during meetings
- bob1029 1y agoAny 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.
- Xelynega 1y agoYea, this sounds like "Microsoft teams no longer supporting video on Linux and old versions of mac/windows" more than anything
- shim__ 1y agoSounds like an good reason to turn down invites with an Teams link
- throitallaway 1y agoYep, joining Teams meetings from a browser on Linux is a flaky experience at best (despite Meet and Zoom working fine.) I'll happily send back a Google Meet invite to anyone that invites me to a Teams meeting.
- raverbashing 1y agoOr, you know, just use the phone in your pocket
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- constantcrying 1y agoNo. It is there to protect an organization from itself. It tells the participants that the content should not be shared by them. It is essentially like a watermark in a PDF. It can be trivially defeated, but that isn't the point.
- import 1y ago[flagged]
- elmerfud 1y ago[flagged]
- ale42 1y agoI think that it might more have legal implications than practical ones. It wont protect the organization from information exfiltration, but it might legally protect it, in the sense that a court might state that the necessary technical measures were there, so the organization is not responsible for the data leak that happened... or something in that direction.
- acchow 1y agoIf they wanted something like a watermark, they could have just added a watermark...
- timewizard 1y agoMy complete guess would be a legal team asked for this. You can easily imagine several scenarios that would prompt them to seek out a feature like this. 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 1y agoThey could just integrate Web DRM APIs like Google Widevine, Microsoft PlayReady, and Apple FairPlay, as both of them are integrated into the operating system and only work with a supported monitor. An HDMI splitter would likely not pass the test. Streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus use these APIs to protect their content as well.
- flutas 1y agoThat's why OP mentioned a spicy HDMI splitter. HDMI splitters are allowed to break HDCP, which means that protection doesn't really matter. 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.
- rthnbgrredf 1y agoHow about a Camera directed at the screen, from an angle not visible by your webcam?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- TiredOfLife 1y agoSame with door locks. If you don't have Protec2 and an armed guard at the door why bother
- tonetegeatinst 1y agoThe workaround that Microsoft is officially supports but isnt mentioning it.....is using microsoft recall.
- svaha1728 1y agoYes. Don’t take a screenshot of your teams meeting, you aren’t trustworthy. We will block that while we take a screenshot of everyone’s computer every couple minutes and run an LLM on it.
- dustbunny 1y agoYeah maybe this is a way of preventing anyone else from creating a copilot competitor
- Hilift 1y agoDoes psr.exe no longer take screenshots?
- wmf 1y agoWhy would Recall be allowed to screenshot DRMed content?
- drawfloat 1y agoBecause Recall would lose its entire purpose if it cannot recall any of your working day.
- TiredOfLife 1y agoIt wouldn't, but nobody criticising Recall uses Windows or had read the announcement
- sureIy 1y agoWhat makes you think that userspace software can bypass userspace restrictions? Any and every screen capture app will show a blank or a replacement screen for the restricted area.
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
- codingdave 1y agoAt some point, you need to trust your staff. If you do not trust them to keep confidential information private, then why are you giving them the information in the first place?
- mingus88 1y agoYou can’t really sniff out disgruntled employees until they act on it.
- rf15 1y agomaybe if your employees are disgruntled and feel like they can't talk to you about it you are shit at your job
- Traubenfuchs 1y agoI had aggressively disgruntled colleagues that couldn‘t deal with being fired, having 3 month notice period and 2 extra salaries and called the CEO names via anonymous all hands meeting. Many people are babies.
- MattPalmer1086 1y agoPeople make mistakes. Why not put a simple control in that doesn't get in the way of any legitimate use?
- Aachen 1y agoThe mistake being, what, accidentally sneezing onto the printscreen button so hard it depresses? This isn't the same as leaving a tool in someone; making and misplacing a screencap take active doing. If your meeting participants actively want to put data where it doesn't belong, the solution isn't accident prevention
- MattPalmer1086 1y agoThe mistake being to intentionally take a copy of something confidential, because you forgot it was supposed to be confidential. People do things like this all the time. It's essentially a guardrail. It can be easily circumvented if someone was being actively malicious.
- micahdeath 1y agoSo, record your screen with your phone. =D
- giancarlostoro 1y agoDoes this include screenshots? Lots of us screenshot coworkers screen share to log bugs and issues they are showing on a screen.
- moralestapia 1y agoYes.
- gloxkiqcza 1y agoThis should be configurable at the very least
- giancarlostoro 1y agoThis will make Teams useless for some of the key features.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- fifticon 1y agoInteresting how this will stop me from taking a picture with my mobile phone. The amount of effort people will go to, to make people's work more cumbersome. I am not screenshotting for espionage, I am screenshotting to accomplish my job.
- mingus88 1y agoThat was my first thought also. 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.
- dullcrisp 1y agoSounds like they’ll want to disable the camera controls next.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y agoDuplicate screen to another monitor outside of view of the camera is the low tech solution. The better one would be to get a HDMI splitter that can plug the feed into something to make a digital copy.
- alabastervlog 1y agoAnd the phone’s what I’d be using to exfiltrate anyway. I’d only screenshot on the work device for work purposes.
- grapesodaaaaa 1y ago100% this. If I have something juicy I want to show my wife about how they’re messing up our 401k’s, etc. I take a phone picture so that there’s no record of it happening on the official device. Microsoft doing this is a huge waste of time other than catching the bottom 5% of people doing something like that. I just want to add that my company has our stuff so locked down, that it’s easier for me to take a phone pic, transcribe the code with ChatGPT, fix the issue on my personal machine, then type it back into the work laptop for some issues. It’s absurd how businesses want to control everything to such a degree that 1) there are now these crazy, leaky workarounds, and 2) it’s to the detriment of people actually getting stuff done for the business.
- johnea 1y agoThis is just to serve as a reminder of who actually "owns" your computer. 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...
- IcyWindows 1y agoIs that really any different than those that grew up with a Mac?
- jolmg 1y agoIt's not a Windows vs Mac thing. It's using closed-source software vs open-source, i.e. Windows & Mac vs Linux et al.
- johnea 1y agoThis is highlighted by how many different types of user interface environments are implemented in free s/w platforms, vs the monoculture user interfaces of proprietary OSes. 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...
- 1y ago
- constantcrying 1y agoAwesome, 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.
- figassis 1y agoI screenshot a lot on meetings to take notes, usually when someone is presenting a slide and I want to note down the bits that are relevant to my work. But no, espionage!
- queuebert 1y agoWhat's to stop me embedding a pinhole camera in the lamp behind me, zooming it in on the screen, and recording every meeting? 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.
- constantcrying 1y agoTotally irrelevant. This is there to protect an organization from itself. Think of it as a watermark on a PDF. It exist to make the easiest way impossible and to tell participants that the content should not be shared by them.
- dist-epoch 1y agoI'm pretty sure you can use some HDMI capture device to do that easier.
- rchaud 1y agoThat's the equivalent of sitting in a movie theater with a camcorder. Not important enough to bother crafting a solution for.
- CorrectHorseBat 1y agoI would say it's completely different. A camcorder movie has bad quality, most people would rather pay for a good quality movie than a free camcorder one. For sensitive data on the other hand quality doesn't matter as long as it's readable.
- SoftTalker 1y agoPlenty of people would pay to watch a camcorder copy of a new release film rather than pay the cost of taking the whole family to the theatre. That’s why it was commonly done. Now you just go online.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- SbEpUBz2 1y agoWhatsApp disabled creating screenshots of profile pictures (this annoyed my grandmother), but it cannot really do this when using through the web interface.
- pjmlp 1y agoThese folks never heard of something called photographic camera.
- sureIy 1y agoWait till they implement no-screenshot zones just like they do with drones.
- whstl 1y agoA former colleague was harassed for a months on end a boss and used screen recordings to prove it to HR. Not surprised at all that MS is doing this.
- sherdil2022 1y agoNothing is stopping anyone from recording the screen and capturing audio. However that is not the point. These features are required by regulated industries and companies like Microsoft can offer them. Plain and simple.
- grishka 1y agoAnd what will prevent people from patching their Teams clients to still allow screenshots? What will prevent someone from building an unofficial Teams client from scratch that has none of this bullshit in the first place?
- nonane 1y agoWhich APIs would one use to implement this feature on Mac and Windows? For example is there a OS level flag that one can include on windows to not allow capturing of the app’s window - or is a notification sent out when someone tries to capture the screen (and then one can just blank the window)?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- gokhan 1y agoOne method for Windows. Nothing can prevent a dedicated user though. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/nf-winuser-setwindowdisplayaffinity https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/...
- GuestFAUniverse 1y agoYeah. Concentrating on getting Windows and all MS products to be more secure and robust, instead of building up smoke and mirros would have been too hard I guess. What a waste of developers resources.
- mindcrash 1y agoThat's quite unfortunate because due to a screen capture through Snipping Tool I got evidence of my org planning to fire me before even making announcements through a shared PowerPoint deck with a slide containing a org chart which shouldn't really be there at the time in the Teams meeting. 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.
- asadotzler 1y agouse your smartphone's camera next time. that puts the evidence on your device rather than your company's device.
- adrr 1y agoI would always screenshot people's desktop/email when they started presenting, lot of people dig up decks in their email or they share their full desktop. Emails are useful especially when dealing with a vendor to see what other customers they are dealing with.
- rf15 1y agoSo how does this affect Teams in the browser?
- asadotzler 1y agoVery likely. WideVine and PlayReady can enforce.
- throitallaway 1y agoIf they don't it's bye bye Teams for me (a blessing in disguise) because they discontinued the Linux client a while ago.
- rf15 1y agoThis is exactly my problem, hope they don't do the insane thing and just butcher it further
- sampton 1y agoWatermarks, both hidden and visible, would be a more sensible solution.
- marcodiego 1y agoThis and DRM and other restrictive anti-features like self destroying messages, un-recordable strings, unprintable files are all fully artificial restrictions. They make no sense when the source code is available since removing it is as simple as removing an if. 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.
- inetknght 1y agoI have a hearing disability. I often recorded meetings so that I could replay and listen to key points again. This is going to block a valid use of screen recording and I wonder if it would violate A.D.A. requirements
- extra88 1y agoYour employer has an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for your disability. There could be a number of solutions including: * 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
- lousken 1y agois this something you have to enable(or disable) for your tenant? or for a particular meeting? i don't understand from the article i don't see why would you want to enable this, unless you have BYOD allowed
- chevman 1y agoMost folks know this is easily defeated typically by viewing the content on another device (eg via casting it, remote desktop, phone mirroring, etc) or viewing it from within a VM, and then using the native screen capture functionality on the viewing device to record/screenshot whatever you need. 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.
- johnnyo 1y ago> This feature will be available on Teams desktop applications (both Windows and Mac) and Teams mobile applications (both iOS and Android)." 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.
- asadotzler 1y agoBrowser DRM like WideVine and PlayReady do the enforcing
- kccqzy 1y agoReally? I didn't know it was possible to use DRM like WideVine for peer-to-peer video.
- adolph 1y agoTeams is going through a central server and bouncing it out to participants, right? Not p2p.
- SoftTalker 1y agoI thought Teams was a reskin of Skype so whatever they used to do…
- bhouston 1y agoThis is security theater. It makes you feel secure but it doesn’t actually protect you. If things can not get out do not share them via Trams in the first place.
- Frost1x 1y agoAnd adds an inconvenience. Easy enough to get around, but, now I have to add some extra effort to get around it.
- NKosmatos 1y agoLOL 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 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 ;-)
- Henchman21 1y agoThis is why I advocate for International DCO EPO day! 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)
- Aurornis 1y ago> 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 want.
- hedora 1y agoSome people might want it, but it doesn’t actually work. It’s probably also required by some compliance theater in some places.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jasonlotito 1y ago> 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?
- gunalx 1y agoStraigth up impossible to block just taking a phone pic of my screen though.
- rKarpinski 1y agoPresumably bypassed by turning off hardware acceleration? Like with many streaming sites that also block screen capture.
- thih9 1y agoI very often take screenshots during meetings, it’s a helpful reference point to me. I never used that to save more sensitive data than what I already have access to. Still, I assume my use case will no longer be supported. That’s unfortunate.
- flufluflufluffy 1y agoI 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?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- twobitshifter 1y agoI do it just taking notes alongside the slides as the presenter goes through. Most PowerPoints have 1 to 3 actual useful slides.
- Noumenon72 1y agoI 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.
- fuzzylightbulb 1y agoWindows can do this via Text Extractor In PowerToys. Unbelievably useful utility that I use all the time.
- flufluflufluffy 1y agoDidn’t think of this, actually makes sense! Though I feel like if it’s that kind of meeting, the presenter would be fine allowing screen caps. And if they’re not, it’s more effort for them to copy and paste into chat, you still get the URL/message in the end. I still don’t get why people are enraged about this.
- hanson108 1y agoUh take a picture.
- jchw 1y agoThis is of course, incredibly stupid, due to the analog hole (which to be fair, is mentioned in passing by the article, but doesn't seem to be addressed at all by MS*.) Having this feature just guarantees it will get used, and possibly made into a standard compliance theater feature, hurting legitimate users for very little practical gain. 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=490051 https://www.microsoft.com/ro-ro/microsoft-365/roadmap?id=490...
- waltbosz 1y agoI 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.
- hu3 1y agoit's probably going to be some DRM codec protection similar to Netflix where video goes black for screenshots.
- Gabrys1 1y agoOn Android, the OS exposes an API allowing the app to control whether it's visible on the screenshot and screen capturing tools (like screen mirroring to your TV). If the app disallowes screenshots (it's called FLAG_SECURE) your screenshot/stream will have a black rectangle instead of the app image. This is usually requested by bank apps and paid content apps like Netflix. 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.
- no_time 1y agoWindows does have an API for this that is not tied to the DRM protected video path I think. My guess comes from the fact that KeepassXC turns black/totally transparent when viewed through a VNC server on windows. Edit: here it is https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/nf-winuser-setwindowdisplayaffinity https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/...
- domakidis 1y agoDesktop Viber on Windows does something like that too
- code4tee 1y agoThis is a pointless feature that’s easily bypassed if you know what you’re doing. It’s there so someone can check a compliance box to make an auditor that doesn’t know much about tech feel better. That’s it.
- chasd00 1y agoThis is exactly right. It’s there to check the “no screenshots allowed” checkbox on some compliance form for some random certification.
- rs186 1y ago> unsupported platforms Ah, basically DRM and Widevine L1 vs L3 for meetings, old story again.
- j45 1y agoUntil someone runs it in a VM.
- sureIy 1y agoVMs are detected and blocked. DRM is hardware-level nowadays.
- j45 1y agoNeat, is there a link supporting that? DRM has been able to be hardware level for a very long time.
- const_cast 1y agoA lot of enterprise environments using things like teams are VDI setups. Can't really disable VMs.
- j45 1y agoThis is my understanding too
- grensley 1y agoI take screenshots because they're definitely going to forget to share the presentation.
- GuB-42 1y agoI guess that if that's optional, including the "Those joining from unsupported platforms will be automatically placed in audio-only mode" part, then why not. I guess it can prevent some accidental leaks, like with someone hitting PrtScr by mistake. But if someone wants to take a screenshot, the "take a picture with your smartphone" exploit is already very obvious and commonly used, even by non-technical people. I know that confidential information is shared like this all the time, bypassing all security, and everyone turns a blind eye to it, because that's how they get the job done. I fully expect that if that feature is forcibly turned on, people will do it without giving a second thought. And if you want to do it discreetly, just turn off your camera or cover it. There are other ways of working around that, like using a video capture card, but why bother when you have a solution so obvious as taking pictures of the screen, even the article mentions it.
- calrain 1y agoJust take a picture with your smartphone and email it to whomever you want. Blocking screen captures is an example of 'Security Theatre'
- ajsnigrutin 1y agoSo wait... chromium on linux will be in audio only mode, and windows users will be able to use their phone cameras to record both audio and video?
- Aeolun 1y agoMaybe these companies should just hire trustworthy people? Or don’t present things controversial enough that good people will want to leak them?
- globalnode 1y agoMeanwhile recall. I sound disgruntled but I'm actually glad its out in the open now.
- neilv 1y ago> Those joining from unsupported platforms will be automatically placed in audio-only mode to protect shared content. Is this anti-competitive and anti-open-standards?
- deadbolt 1y agoGood to see Microsoft returning to their roots /s
- tacheiordache 1y agoSo if you're screen capturing with something like OBS or screen shot snips it would show black? For audio it'd be silence?
- dankwizard 1y agoVery pleased this is coming. Once a week I hold a meeting with stakeholders to show my latest art works and I can hear them push the print screen button. Very annoying. I am trying to get these freshly minted but if is becomes public somebody has screenshotted them, the value plummets
- artursapek 1y ago>However, it should be noted that, even if screenshots are blocked, sensitive media and information shared in Teams meetings can still be captured by taking a photo of the conversation. At least the article points out the reason that doing this is completely pointless
- kyriakos 1y agoThis kills teams for Linux users since there is no desktop client so capturing can't be prevented. Linux users will be audio only in those calls. The worst thing about this feature is that if someone takes a screenshot it will be saved on an IT controlled computer but if users are forced to snap screen caps with their phones the sensitive information ends up on personal devices and probably cloud synced to Google drive etc
- socalgal2 1y agoSounds like only a matter of time until Microsoft adds this to Edge (and Chromium) and thenn any page can prevent you from taking a screenshot
- charcircuit 1y agoThis already exists in browsers. It's why you can't screenshot movies on youtube.com or netflix.com for example.
- userbinator 1y agoPart of that has to do with acceleration overlays, not DRM. You can often disable hardware acceleration and get your screenshot that way. Netflix is DRM though.
- charcircuit 1y agoBoth use L1 DRM*. * At least for full resolution
- aeternum 1y agoThis would be a great feature if cameras didn't exist.
- bjt12345 1y agoCurious. What's stopping people from using gaming capture cards to record the meetings then?
- dboreham 1y agoI remember having this exact debate 30 years ago with a PM. The context was voice messaging but otherwise the same discussion. User could just tape record the message.
- musicale 1y agoSo Teams thinks they are Netflix now?
- jmward01 1y agoI can see that some users (management?) would want this because they don't trust their people, but I bet Microsoft wants this to push Teams software on holdouts. I absolutely -hate- the download button for video conferencing (or any) apps that should just stay in the browser but you know they want full control of your device, and how much data they can send back.
- AStonesThrow 1y agoIt's sort of amazing how there is a flood of replies in this thread from people who would never hesitate to override/bypass the protection by using "the analog hole" or some other workaround. And this just goes to show you how easily "Shadow IT" can arise in a place of business. My previous employer subscribed to Google Workspaces, and we used it for Docs and Sheets and Gmail; standard type uses. We also used Slack a lot. Now there were a lot of areas that were clearly off-limits to me as a user. For example, the Google Play Store was completely empty for my account -- I couldn't install any mobile apps at all. This hindered me from creating a separate user on my smartphone just for work. Also, entire Google properties were off-limits, such as Maps. We didn't need or use those in our work there. There was a lot locked down, but there were a lot of things left open around the edges. Now I have a "hacker mindset" where if something isn't working, I'll immediately consider it a glitch or bug, and try to work around it. If I can't sign in to something it's probably a "me" problem and I hammer on the door a bit. Basically the last thing on my mind is security restrictions. And for many of us working with computers, there's just the question of the supervisor asking us to get something done, and we go and try to do it, and that's how rogue WAPs show up in corporate networks; that's how backdoors show up on our desktop PCs, etc. Indeed, many features on Android or Chrome these days are removed due to security trouble. I often realize this after-the-fact, when I think about the implications of using such a feature. Sure, it's a good thing the product is made more secure, but this feature has vanished, usually without adequate explanation, and so my workflow suffers. https://m.xkcd.com/1172/ https://m.xkcd.com/1172/ So the next time I am tempted to just do a workaround for some glitch I perceive, I'm going to ponder it a little more deeply and consider whether there are security implications.
- duxup 1y agoThis seems like it would just give the presenter a false sense of security. Otherwise the presenter knows this is pointless…
- jimjimwii 1y agoI guess ill just connect my phone to a charger and record the screen then. What is the threat model that Microsoft hopes to thwart with this nonsense?
- ta12653421 1y agoI would be glad if they allow to _DISABLE_ incoming video streams! Its such a horro to see every colleague at 8am so big on the screen like as they were sitting on my desk, 10cm away and i can smell their coffee breathe
- PeterStuer 1y agoSo I now have to setup a phone recording the computer screen to have a record of the meeting?
- buyucu 1y agoI don't understand why anyone uses Microsoft Teams. It is by far the worst tool for meetings and chats.
- mrcsharp 1y agoAnd this won't work. One cannot use digital methods to protect against analog methods.
- Nihilartikel 1y agoWonder how well it will work from chromium in Wayland. That is, I'm genuinely curious. Like is there any protocol or standard to mark a part of a DOM or a canvas as uncapturable? Up though the compositor and pipewire or however it happens these days?
- oflebbe 1y agoNo Teams meeting with video on Linux any more.
- jiehong 1y agoHopefully this does not break some kind of accessibility feature, like something that needs to read what’s on the screen to tell you about it.
- rpwilcox 1y agoI use a USB-C hub with DisplayLink to drive my setup. This means MacOS thinks I'm recording the screen. I'm a bit worried Team's solution will use those APIs will be used (ie I'll have a choice: see a Teams meeting video OR be hooked up to all my monitors). What I think is a related side effect: I also can't watch video (streaming via web browser or via Apple TV app) with this setup either.
- guappa 1y agoHow can they possibly enforce this? Teams is just a webpage in a browser.
- masfoobar 1y agoI dont think this is as useful if they think it is, whether its a requirement from users or a push from authorities, generally speaking. I mean, no matter what you do - there will always be a workaround. People could just get their phone out and take a picture of the screen. Sure, the quality is not as good - but I am sure it is good enough. I am sure there are other variations to workarounds. Besides, if anyone has a problem being on screen - then dont turn your camera on. However, this is not a solution when working for a company that forces the webcam to be on especially for meetings -- AND THEY CAN RECORD IT! I am sure recordings, if enabled, can be downloaded. This will likely be in a typical video file. I would not be suprised, if you open it in a video program, you can then take pictures. Maybe I am wrong, there.