• @cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    If its processed locally and sent nowhere, why is this a concern? Unless otherwise.

    Edit: I phrased it wrong. If MS claims its processed locally, and is like a second eye, why they would provide an exception to DRM contents. This could mean that some data might get sent to MS servers and transfer of DRM content is banned, this poses a legal risk. Who knows.

    • NekuSoul
      link
      fedilink
      English
      136 months ago

      The non-fun answer is that they’re most likely just using the default screenshot mechanism, which already blocks that. Other programs like KeePassXC, which also hides itself from screenshots and recordings (unless allowed) will probably not be included either.

    • @Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      316 months ago

      Because I absolutely do not trust microsoft to not have some information going back to a server somewhere.

      • Skua
        link
        fedilink
        30
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I think you’ve misunderstood the comment above. They’re asking why snapshotting DRM-protected content would be a problem if everything stays local, implying that since it’s a problem it does not stay local