They just chose to preference the interests of corporates and money over people, deliberately.
In fact, research like this https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/catching-the-corporate-conscience-a-new-model-of-systems-intentio indicates that, legally, the purpose of a system is what it does.
"corporations manifest their intentions through the systems of conduct that they adopt and operate, both in the sense that any system reveals the corporate intention and in the sense that it embodies or instantiates that intention."
"Where there are patterns of misconduct, this will often reveal the presence of a system designed to, or apt to, produce that misconduct."
@daedalus engineer here (not for this AI shit, obviously)
stuff like this is handed down from on high, trickling from C-levels, Product Managers, Project Managers, Engineering Managers, and finally landing in front of Engineers to implement. Microsoft is notorious in this style of management.
you can say "engineers are the ones who write the code so the buck stops with them," to which I say: why do you think Microsoft is so adamant about replacing them with robots? it's because engineers often push back on stuff like this and make things "difficult". it's Product that's always pushing these hare-brained schemes blindly because they want to meet OKR targets that engineers couldn't care less about.
Hard truth right here. It is exhausting.
"it's Product that's always pushing these hare-brained schemes blindly because they want to meet OKR targets that engineers couldn't care less about."
@daedalus “What about the COUS’?”
“Corporations Of Unusual Size? I don’t think they exist.”
@daedalus Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by API limitations. It is far more likely that Microsoft isn't privileging their own app and isn't giving it any special access to Windows APIs that a third-party developer wouldn't have (which is a good thing). As a consequence, the app is just as unable to access "protected" content as any other third-party app. Look at Zoom, TeamViewer, or any other piece of remote access, teleconferencing, MDM or parental control software, and you will find the same limitation, regardless of which platform the software is running on. Notably, this also applies to open source software running on open operating systems.
Not giving this app access to DRMed content was just an easy technical decision to make.
@daedalus As Raymond Chen @ Microsoft keeps saying, any new feature starts with negative 100 points.
Something this big starts with way fewer points than that because of the resource consumption - they're releasing it at 20% of the average disk size FFS.
@daedalus No it does not. The stuff is bad enough as it is, let's not add spurious wrong assertions to it.
DRM content has long been specially handled in the core. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Path
It wouldn't be much of a DRM if you could just record the screen during playback.
Yes, you can probably circumvent that. And they would even be in a privileged position to do so.
But the point is, the most straightforward direct implementation *without thinking* doesn't capture DRM by default.
@daedalus For the most part, these are people also being crushed by capitalism boot.
While I'd argue some are likely willing/ignorant others are likely ignored, not trusted but used as a tool by management.
https://eigenmagic.net/@daedalus/112481049072916563
So i guess any remotely sensitive app has to flag its UI as DRM'ed content then?
The fact that Microsoft's new Recall thing won't capture DRM content means the engineers do understand the risk of logging everything. They just chose to preference the interests of corporates and money over people, deliberately.
Can we copyright what is on our screen and wrap it in DRM?