3 ms·

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 t

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.

Xelynega 1y ago
Yea, this sounds like "Microsoft teams no longer supporting video on Linux and old versions of mac/windows" more than anything
- shim__ 1y ago
  Sounds like an good reason to turn down invites with an Teams link
- throitallaway 1y ago
  Yep, 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 ago
Or, you know, just use the phone in your pocket
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
constantcrying 1y ago
No. 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 ago
    I 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 ago
  If they wanted something like a watermark, they could have just added a watermark...
timewizard 1y ago
My 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 ago
They 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 ago
  That'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 ago
  How about a Camera directed at the screen, from an angle not visible by your webcam?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TiredOfLife 1y ago
Same with door locks. If you don't have Protec2 and an armed guard at the door why bother

Xelynega 1y ago

Yea, this sounds like "Microsoft teams no longer supporting video on Linux and old versions of mac/windows" more than anything

shim__ 1y ago
Sounds like an good reason to turn down invites with an Teams link
throitallaway 1y ago
Yep, 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 ago

Or, you know, just use the phone in your pocket

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

constantcrying 1y ago

No. 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 ago
  I 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 ago
If they wanted something like a watermark, they could have just added a watermark...

timewizard 1y ago

My 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 ago

They 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 ago
That'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 ago
How about a Camera directed at the screen, from an angle not visible by your webcam?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

TiredOfLife 1y ago

Same with door locks. If you don't have Protec2 and an armed guard at the door why bother