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.
Because I absolutely do not trust microsoft to not have some information going back to a server somewhere.
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
Oh yes my bad, brilliant point
Yes.
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.
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.
Because I absolutely do not trust microsoft to not have some information going back to a server somewhere.
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
Oh yes my bad, brilliant point
Yes.
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.
locally until the next automatic update.