• leicharben@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    ·
    10 months ago

    Microsoft Teams will soon encourage users to point their phones at their screens from off camera during meetings

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    ·
    10 months ago

    The important bit:

    Those joining from unsupported platforms will be automatically placed in audio-only mode to protect shared content.

    And I presume everything except Windows 11 Teams will be considered “unsupported”.

  • msbeta1421@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    10 months ago

    I hate stuff like this because screen grabs during meetings or lectures is my favorite way to take notes.

    • xavier666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      Nooooo. If you do that, you won’t be paying for Teams Premium which has built in support for screen recording. Think of the revenue lost 😭😭

      Edit: I should add /s incase people think I’m a Microsoft shill

  • katy ✨
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    10 months ago

    i mean if someone really wanted to commit espionage they’d just take a photo of the screen with their camera.

    • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      I suspect running teams on Windows in Parallels on a Mac would still let me use the Mac’s screen record feature.

  • lipilee@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    10 months ago

    now that all the performance, reliability, and usability issues are solved in Teams, it’s great to see all that energy going into this useful feature that is surely not possible to circumvent in any way.

    /s

  • AllBiMyself
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    10 months ago

    Microsoft is working on adding a new Teams feature that will prevent users from capturing screenshots of sensitive information shared during meetings.

    Clickbait title

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, the title is quite accurate. There is no magic to discern “sensitive” data from that which is not.

        • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            10 months ago

            From the article:

            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.

            • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Like I said, there’s always been a way to defeat this type of protection. This feature makes doing so more difficult.

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s pure speculation. Did you even read the article?

          Edit: here, let me help you:

          Also, Microsoft has yet to share if the feature will be enabled by default or can be toggled on and off by meeting organizers or admins.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Considering most of the organizations using Teams bear the “enterprise” warning label I wouldn’t count on whoever you are talking to having the ability (as in permissions, not stupidity) to turn it off.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            10 months ago

            “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.

          • dnick@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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?

              • dnick@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Well, ‘proven wrong’ is a bit of a stretch. ‘will soon block screen capture’ doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room, but also isn’t that crazy to read into it that maybe it would block screen capture on the presenters screen… especially if you grant that it might only have control over the teams portion of the screen. I’ve had it black out windows on my own machine even when not presenting.

                But further than that, it’s not fair to say everything has to be read only from the most or the least charitable viewpoints. Context is a thing and if you’re even a little bit familiar with the history of software enshittification, it’s reasonable to assume that an uncharitable reading is fair without assuming the app will now melt your computer for spare parts if you try something that is disallowed. ‘As shitty as we can get away with’ might be a good rule of thumb.

        • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        “This feature will be available on Teams desktop applications (both Windows and Mac) and Teams mobile applications (both iOS and Android).”

        Knowing ms they’ll just make browsers audio only going forward

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 months ago

    So many commenters here and at the article get a hard on to bash MS for anything.

    MS won’t make this a requirement, nor will they make using the Teams app a requirement. This isnt some backhanded way to get people to switch from Linux to windows.

    This is MS responding to an enterprise feature request.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      10 months ago

      The reflexive hate for M$ is not irrational fan-boys bashing a rival, but bitterness over prolonged and profound annoyance, suffering, and downright abuse experienced through using the products produced by that dogshit company.

      I switched because I wanted software that didn’t hate me and my values.

      What’s irrational is the Stockholm-syndrome Windows user who thinks it’s normal and right to run software that spies, advertises, and generally treats users like a resource to be exploited.

    • fatalicus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, commented on the sister thread of this over on the technology subreddit that this wouldnt be a default on feature, and probably be either something the meeting owner has to enable (or tenant admins set to enabled in a policy) or it will be part of sensitivity labels or DLP policies.

      Instant downvote.

    • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      The moment a certain company is mentioned in an article, lemmy will go rabid, it doesn’t really matter what the article is about. I am a Linux nerd and if MS crashed and burned tomorrow I wouldn’t exactly shed a tear but the knee jerk reactions are pretty weird to observe.

  • toastmeister@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is why they require a TPM, your motherboard will be DRM against you owning the operating system and it will only run signed software.

    • Lyra_LycanBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I installed Windows 11 with an unsupported CPU, kinda funny how it just worked despite all their screeching that it wouldn’t work and updating not working, but installing with installation media was flawless.

      It’s a real bitch, automatically logging me into my partner’s account for the whole system and overriding my local user settings when I open MS Office apps Excel or Word (but that’s just Windows), and it cries about my lack of TPM on those apps and the Start menu when it does log in and cries about me not being logged into a MS account otherwise, but you know what? Everything still actually operates.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t want to be that guy, but why use Windows at that point?

        • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          An OS is a tool.
          And you are a tool if you use the wrong tool for a purpose.
          E.g. an essential program that only runs on windows and is either impossible or troublesome to run elsewhere.

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I agree. That’s why I wouldn’t install Windows 11 on an unsupported CPU in the first place, let alone keep it installed after having one issue after another like the comment I replied to had mentioned.

            Seems like the wrong tool to me.

      • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        What CPU?

        The list of unsupported CPUs is for OEMs licensing new computers as Windows 11 certified.

        Nothing stopping you installing Windows 11 or upgrading to Windows 11 with an incompatible CPU.

        The only item that requires a hack is the lack of TPM. Now that I still don’t understand.

        Also, Office by default installs with licensing configured per machine but can be installed so it is licensed per user.

  • SubUrbanIT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    10 months ago

    Gonna be difficult to block screen capture when I have a phone in my hand with a camera that can be record what I see.

    • Zacryon@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Don’t be so bold. Microsoft is investing in military AI applications. So don’t be surprised when your computer slaps that camera right out of your hands and punches you in the face. /j (or not, idk, things are looking bad)

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        There are some autonomous cars with lidar out there where the lidar is so powerful it can wreck a camera close up, but is still safe for eyes.

        Switch up FaceID to use a more powerful laser which will wreck the phones camera, and start making webcams for non macs that are required to have this in them for Teams to work.

  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    So you’re saying that I can just start an infinite empty meeting in order to block the AI Recall thing from recording my screen?