this is true, if you have privacy categories setup and you use something that isn’t rated for someone, they won’t be able to see it. Kinda like permissions. Government and Medical environments is where I’ve seen it applied. It’s a beast to implement.
Yeah, not seeing this as the big bad everyone thinks it is. We regularly have Teams meetings with other companies when they’re sharing their proprietary info. I’m okay with a screen capture disabling function just like we’d want to use from time to time.
Those joining from unsupported platforms will be automatically placed in audio-only mode to protect shared content.
and
“This feature will be available on Teams desktop applications (both Windows and Mac) and Teams mobile applications (both iOS and Android).”
So this is actually worse than just blocking screen capturing. This will break video calls for some setups for no reason at all since all it takes to break this is a phone camera - one of the most common things in the world.
What part of the headline suggests the feature is mandatory? Assuming its mandatory doesn’t pass the critical thinking “sniff test” because what is sensitive is purely subjective. Microsoft has no way of knowing what data you consider sensitive. As in, there’s no way Microsoft could make it mandatory on only “sensitive” data.
That’s a charitable reading, and likely justified by the article, but based only on the phrasing, it’s just as likely to read that as assuming Microsoft will block all content in order to ensure the safety of sensitive data. Sniff tests have to be adapted when things tend to stink in general, or companies regularly try to cover up their smell.
it’s just as likely to read that as assuming Microsoft will block all content in order to ensure the safety of sensitive data.
Hang on. If you’re rejecting rational use cases that companies use Teams for, then your assumption must be that Microsoft will block ALL screen capture when a teams meeting is occurring whether its of the Teams meeting content being shared or not. As in, even the presenter would be blocked from doing screen captures of their own system. Why isn’t that your conclusion?
Why are you, again, from the headline only, assuming that screen capture would mandatory for just content shared to you by a Teams presenter? You chose a middle ground, but why didn’t you choose full blocking?
Sniff tests have to be adapted when things tend to stink in general, or companies regularly try to cover up their smell.
So are you adapting yours back now because yours was proven wrong?
Clickbait title
No, the title is quite accurate. There is no magic to discern “sensitive” data from that which is not.
It’s not accurate because it will be an optional feature.
this is true, if you have privacy categories setup and you use something that isn’t rated for someone, they won’t be able to see it. Kinda like permissions. Government and Medical environments is where I’ve seen it applied. It’s a beast to implement.
Yeah, not seeing this as the big bad everyone thinks it is. We regularly have Teams meetings with other companies when they’re sharing their proprietary info. I’m okay with a screen capture disabling function just like we’d want to use from time to time.
From the article:
and
So this is actually worse than just blocking screen capturing. This will break video calls for some setups for no reason at all since all it takes to break this is a phone camera - one of the most common things in the world.
This has always been the case for anything that restricts screen capture. The tech makes getting detailed information more difficult, that’s all.
Adobe does this with PDFs by restricting printing. You can still record the screen and flip through each page.
Also, you’ll look odd holding your phone up to the screen.
just connect another display, set it to mirroring, and point a camera at that. or just use a video capture card.
Like I said, there’s always been a way to defeat this type of protection. This feature makes doing so more difficult.
That’s pure speculation. Did you even read the article?
What part of the headline suggests the feature is mandatory? Assuming its mandatory doesn’t pass the critical thinking “sniff test” because what is sensitive is purely subjective. Microsoft has no way of knowing what data you consider sensitive. As in, there’s no way Microsoft could make it mandatory on only “sensitive” data.
“Microsoft” “will” “block”
Those parts of the title.
The source though indicates that it will be a Feature and it even has its own name. Sadly it doesn’t point out that it will be optional.
Additionally you can see in the comments of the article that people think this will be mandatory.
That’s a charitable reading, and likely justified by the article, but based only on the phrasing, it’s just as likely to read that as assuming Microsoft will block all content in order to ensure the safety of sensitive data. Sniff tests have to be adapted when things tend to stink in general, or companies regularly try to cover up their smell.
Hang on. If you’re rejecting rational use cases that companies use Teams for, then your assumption must be that Microsoft will block ALL screen capture when a teams meeting is occurring whether its of the Teams meeting content being shared or not. As in, even the presenter would be blocked from doing screen captures of their own system. Why isn’t that your conclusion?
Why are you, again, from the headline only, assuming that screen capture would mandatory for just content shared to you by a Teams presenter? You chose a middle ground, but why didn’t you choose full blocking?
So are you adapting yours back now because yours was proven wrong?
Doubt it will prevent flameshot from working if I use teams in firefox
Knowing ms they’ll just make browsers audio only going forward