The key was, if you had originally set it for both, and hadn’t gone back and changed it, the policy was still being enforced on both. It would, however, require you to split it across two different policies if you made a change to that policy but if you hadn’t, you were fine.
That’s about to change:
Ewelina gives you the full background on what they are putting out for the rest of us trying to keep our M365 environments secure while users start running around with their agents: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7507706670333009920/ As organisations accelerate agentic AI adoption, unmanaged agents can retrieve sensitive data, invoke tools, and take action across systems, often without sufficient…
It’s a real issue, and Copilot is great for living inside the tenant, being the safer option, and giving you some control, but most of that benefit goes away if there is SharePoint sprawl, oversharing, a lack of proper governance and retention policies, or plain neglect.
In fact, Copilot will shine a light on that before you can even get approval for your first label to be published.
You might not be ready for Copilot, or any enterprise AI tool, if your environment lacks proper governance. Sorry.
This seems like such an obvious feature, but it’s been missing for so long that I’m guessing most of us forgot you couldn’t do this.
The Roadmap still lists a vast number of product updates that have nothing to do with AI. It’s inaccurate, which makes it confusing if you’re looking for updates on non-AI features. Then again, maybe it also proves that, to Microsoft, there are no non-AI features in the company any longer.
This might be worth watching in your own tenant. I’ve seen this with large OneNote files. The size increases when someone embeds files and images inside OneNote, but that isn’t what Tony describes here with Loop. I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t part of the problem: a link pulls content into the Loop…
Some interesting things to consider when setting a retention policy for Planner tasks. I’m interested in seeing how it works, but also whether it applies to the copy of the task stored in the user’s mailbox when it’s assigned to someone. From an eDiscovery standpoint, I don’t think Planner tasks have been a huge topic…
We can publicly measure the cost of someone using AI against the output of their work. If the user can’t tell the total cost of their AI work, we can create a dashboard of costs and let the workforce judge themselves openly. Since users can’t tell themselves how much compute they’re using, we make it public and make them prove the value.
That seems significant. As someone who works in the legal industry, this is concerning. Some of our clients will not look kindly on us using any third-party tool that can’t provide SOC reports, and I know anyone working with the federal government is looking at that first bullet point about FedRAMP and wondering if they should make sure this isn’t enabled in their environment.
Most are just trying to get through the overwhelming amount of work they need to do. Learning a new tool isn’t on their radar unless it can help them get that work done right this very moment. Meanwhile, we’ve got a bunch of IT leaders spending a ton of time learning these tools or testing the compliance issues involved in using them, which we should do. How much is enough, though? How much time do we dedicate to tools that are going to be used by less than 10% of the workforce?
