[HN Gopher] Microsoft Teams will soon block screen capture durin...
___________________________________________________________________
Microsoft Teams will soon block screen capture during meetings
Author : josephcsible
Score : 72 points
Date : 2025-05-10 19:39 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bleepingcomputer.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bleepingcomputer.com)
| bob1029 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Yea, this sounds like "Microsoft teams no longer supporting
| video on Linux and old versions of mac/windows" more than
| anything
| shim__ wrote:
| Sounds like an good reason to turn down invites with an Teams
| link
| raverbashing wrote:
| Or, you know, just use the phone in your pocket
| constantcrying wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Are you ok bro? You wrote the similar sentences to the other
| few comments criticizing the Microsoft's nonsense feature.
| elmerfud wrote:
| You can keep repeating this nonsense but it doesn't make it
| true. It just means that you've drank the Kool-Aid and don't
| really understand how technology works.
|
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| If they wanted something like a watermark, they could have
| just added a watermark...
| timewizard wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| The workaround that Microsoft is officially supports but isnt
| mentioning it.....is using microsoft recall.
| dustbunny wrote:
| Yeah maybe this is a way of preventing anyone else from
| creating a copilot competitor
| svaha1728 wrote:
| Yes. 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.
| Hilift wrote:
| Does psr.exe no longer take screenshots?
| wmf wrote:
| Why would Recall be allowed to screenshot DRMed content?
| codingdave wrote:
| At 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 wrote:
| You can't really sniff out disgruntled employees until they act
| on it.
| rf15 wrote:
| maybe if your employees are disgruntled and feel like they
| can't talk to you about it you are shit at your job
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| People make mistakes. Why not put a simple control in that
| doesn't get in the way of any legitimate use?
| Aurornis wrote:
| I have some friends who work in a medical facility. They get an
| extreme amount of training on patient privacy laws and constant
| reminders not to get sensitive patient information on to their
| personal devices.
|
| 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.
| hedora wrote:
| In the US, medical privacy laws serve exactly two purposes:
|
| 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.
| micahdeath wrote:
| So, record your screen with your phone. =D
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Does this include screenshots? Lots of us screenshot coworkers
| screen share to log bugs and issues they are showing on a screen.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Yes.
| gloxkiqcza wrote:
| This should be configurable at the very least
| fifticon wrote:
| Interesting 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 wrote:
| That 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 wrote:
| Sounds like they'll want to disable the camera controls next
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Duplicate 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 wrote:
| And the phone's what I'd be using to exfiltrate anyway. I'd
| only screenshot on the work device _for work purposes_.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Not relevant at all.
|
| This is like a watermark on a PDF. Not some impossible to
| circumvent security protocol.
| Aurornis wrote:
| It's not literally every Teams meeting.
|
| 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.
| Frost1x wrote:
| I don't know about you but sometimes it's some small piece of
| information that isn't worth contacting the presenter about.
| I need to call or craft an email, be polite and come up with
| some nonsense greeting maybe for a bullet point or two or a
| string I don't want to rapidly shift focus to duplicate by
| hand. Then I have to sit around and wait for a response where
| they have to do the same, and I'm definitely not their
| priority.
|
| 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.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I don't know about you but sometimes it's some small
| piece of information that isn't worth contacting the
| presenter about. I need to call or craft an email, be
| polite and come up with some nonsense greeting maybe for a
| bullet point or two or a string I don't want to rapidly
| shift focus to duplicate by hand. Then I have to sit around
| and wait for a response where they have to do the same, and
| I'm definitely not their priority.
|
| 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.
| IshKebab wrote:
| No he didn't say it's _critically_ important. I don 't
| know why you're being obtuse about this. He's 100% right.
| johnea wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| Is that really any different than those that grew up with a
| Mac?
| jolmg wrote:
| It'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 wrote:
| This 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...
| johnea wrote:
| Really only as a matter of scale.
|
| 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.
| constantcrying wrote:
| 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.
| Aicy wrote:
| 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.
| figassis wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| What'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 wrote:
| Totally 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 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you can use some HDMI capture device to do that
| easier.
| rchaud wrote:
| That's the equivalent of sitting in a movie theater with a
| camcorder. Not important enough to bother crafting a solution
| for.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| I 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.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| But if it makes Microsoft's claim untenable then it's worth
| noting that security is only limited...a sweeping
| generalization that "screen capture is blocked" isn't really
| valid anymore.
|
| Making something more difficult is okay to claim in my view,
| but trying to over-state capabilities or security concerns is
| problematic.
| rolph wrote:
| the Analogue hole Will never Die
| immibis wrote:
| They tried to. They tried to make cameras illegal. Remember
| that?
| orangecat wrote:
| Yup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_D
| igital.... Scarily it would be more technically feasible to
| implement this today than it was then.
| Aurornis wrote:
| I love all the comments imagining complex technical workarounds
| while skipping right over the obvious workaround of using a
| smartphone camera to take a picture of the screen (which was
| mentioned near the top of the article that everyone read, of
| course). Modern camera phones are wide angle enough that it's
| not hard to grab a shot of the monitor out of frame.
|
| > 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.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Exactly right. The great firewall of China is another example
| - of it blocks 60% of people from outside content it is
| probably "good enough for government work".
| to11mtm wrote:
| > Modern camera phones are wide angle enough that it's not
| hard to grab a shot of the monitor out of frame.
|
| 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.
| marcodiego wrote:
| The vendors of the camera have the same interests of the vendor
| of the software. It is just a matter of time until the software
| watermarks the video and your camera automatically stops
| recording.
|
| Users have to resort to (exclusively, if possible) open source
| tools.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The real solution is democratization of manufacturing. We
| need the ability to make our own hardware, our own computers.
| Then we won't need to suffer the silly policies of
| corporations.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| Or... y'know having a HDMI capture box with a trigger pedal.
| whatwhaaaaat wrote:
| Doesn't hdcp take care of that? 720p over component sure but
| hdmi has protection for this.
| stordoff wrote:
| Most cheap HDMI splitters seem to disable HDCP.
| SbEpUBz2 wrote:
| WhatsApp disabled creating screenshots of profile pictures (this
| annoyed my grandmother), but it cannot really do this when using
| through the web interface.
| pjmlp wrote:
| These folks never heard of something called photographic camera.
| whstl wrote:
| A 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 wrote:
| Nothing 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 wrote:
| And 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 wrote:
| Which 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)?
| gokhan wrote:
| One method for Windows. Nothing can prevent a dedicated user
| though.
|
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/...
| GuestFAUniverse wrote:
| Yeah. 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 wrote:
| That'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 wrote:
| use your smartphone's camera next time. that puts the evidence
| on your device rather than your company's device.
| rf15 wrote:
| So how does this affect Teams in the browser?
| asadotzler wrote:
| Very likely. WideVine and PlayReady can enforce.
| sampton wrote:
| Watermarks, both hidden and visible, would be a more sensible
| solution.
| marcodiego wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| Your 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 wrote:
| is 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 wrote:
| Most 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Browser DRM like WideVine and PlayReady do the enforcing
| kccqzy wrote:
| Really? I didn't know it was possible to use DRM like
| WideVine for peer-to-peer video.
| adolph wrote:
| Teams is going through a central server and bouncing it
| out to participants, right? Not p2p.
| to11mtm wrote:
| From the Article, if only to be pedantic enough that I agree
| with 'yes a browser might work'
|
| > 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.
| rvba wrote:
| The things you mention are a dream for most corporate
| employees, where everything is locked on their computers.
|
| They will just make photos using their phones.
| tstrimple wrote:
| Ran into this "feature" this week. So instead of grabbing a
| screen cap from my VDI I have to grab it from my primary OS and
| then email myself the image to cross that corp "boundary". They
| recently disabled copy and paste between my computer and the
| VDI session as well.
| bhouston wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| And adds an inconvenience. Easy enough to get around, but, now
| I have to add some extra effort to get around it.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| LOL 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 wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Some people might want it, but it doesn't actually work. It's
| probably also required by some compliance theater in some
| places.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > 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?
| brookst wrote:
| Would it work on Mac?
| jasonlotito wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Edit: But yeah, nothing to say why it can't work. So,
| yeah.
| c-hendricks wrote:
| 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?
| jasonlotito wrote:
| What about a camera?
|
| 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.
| shawnz wrote:
| They can't control the entire stack because of the
| analogue hole
| adolph wrote:
| Yeah, some enterprise admin will click it and make it
| clickable for others. It's a classic ratchet of
| enshittification until things reach a magic intolerability
| point and folks evacuate to other systems leading those to
| get rolled into one of the borgs: lather, rinse, repeat.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| There isn't a single user (presenter) that would ask
| something like this. Only a presenter that has to follow some
| strict "high security" procedures would enable something like
| this. A politician, for example, will have an excuse in case
| something leaks. The fact that with a simple mobile having a
| camera you can copy whatever is being presented (or with
| slightly more technical ways) is irrelevant for laws and
| procedures ;-)
| cheschire wrote:
| You don't get invited to the right meetings, I see.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > There isn't a single user (presenter) that would ask
| something like this.
|
| 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.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Pretty common where I have worked. Most commonly when
| reviewing internal product roadmaps to our sales teams
| because we've burned too many times when customers complain
| that we haven't implemented something we never announced
| but a sales person mentioned/showed.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > The fact that with a simple mobile having a camera you
| can copy whatever is being presented (or with slightly more
| technical ways) is irrelevant for laws and procedures ;-)
|
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| [delayed]
| tw04 wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| Lets blame laws and regulations for features private companies
| decide to implement, because I guess that will help us destroy
| the state.
|
| Stop making up laws and regulations that dont exist.
| 6P58r3MXJSLi wrote:
| > easily circumvented)
|
| Or, you know, just take a picture of the screen with your
| phone.
|
| Or record the session, or film it, etc etc etc
| gunalx wrote:
| Straigth up impossible to block just taking a phone pic of my
| screen though.
| rKarpinski wrote:
| Presumably bypassed by turning off hardware acceleration? Like
| with many streaming sites that also block screen capture.
| thih9 wrote:
| I 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.
| kccqzy wrote:
| I do the same. But I think you can just nicely ask the
| presenter to share the deck.
| flufluflufluffy wrote:
| 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?
| hanson108 wrote:
| Uh take a picture.
| jchw wrote:
| This 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=490...
| waltbosz wrote:
| I 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-10 23:00 UTC)