Any security feature that can be totally defeated with a spicy HDMI splitter and a 2nd computer should not exist.
This stuff looks much more to me like "fuck the user" than anything else. I am 100% convinced there is a cult of evil bastards at Microsoft, et. al. that is hellbent on making everyone's UI/UX as janky as possible.
Yep, joining Teams meetings from a browser on Linux is a flaky experience at best (despite Meet and Zoom working fine.) I'll happily send back a Google Meet invite to anyone that invites me to a Teams meeting.
My complete guess would be a legal team asked for this. You can easily imagine several scenarios that would prompt them to seek out a feature like this.
I think this because our company recently enforced a 2 year mail deletion policy on all mailboxes for "legal reasons." Which were "we don't want stuff to show up in discovery if we get sued."
They could just integrate Web DRM APIs like Google Widevine, Microsoft PlayReady, and Apple FairPlay, as both of them are integrated into the operating system and only work with a supported monitor. An HDMI splitter would likely not pass the test.
Streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus use these APIs to protect their content as well.
That's why OP mentioned a spicy HDMI splitter. HDMI splitters are allowed to break HDCP, which means that protection doesn't really matter.
I use a setup like this frequently for work to demo our Android TV based apps with full content even though it all has DRM applied. Always leads to a "how did you get this footage" line of questioning for anyone who knows that we use DRM.
You can keep repeating this nonsense but it doesn't make it true. It just means that you've drank the Kool-Aid and don't really understand how technology works.
It offers no meaningful protection to the organization itself. Anyone who's willing to violate a company policy that says not to record and share information this will not stop them or slow them down in the slightest. So it offers no protection at all.
It is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand and thinking it's safe. you continuing to spout this nonsense I'm not sure which is worse this policy thinking it protects people or people who actually believes at this would protect people.
I think that it might more have legal implications than practical ones. It wont protect the organization from information exfiltration, but it might legally protect it, in the sense that a court might state that the necessary technical measures were there, so the organization is not responsible for the data leak that happened... or something in that direction.
This stuff looks much more to me like "fuck the user" than anything else. I am 100% convinced there is a cult of evil bastards at Microsoft, et. al. that is hellbent on making everyone's UI/UX as janky as possible.