Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts] incorporate mitigations for font based fingerprinting (#4055)

Hi @AmeliaBR 

Thanks for the comments.  A couple of comments:

> So, the request here is to upgrade that "may" into a "should".

I think *must* (i.e. "User Agents ~may choose to~ *must* ignore…") would be the right word.  Correctly implementing the standard should make impossible the kinds of privacy violations the current version enables.  Similarly, standards should strictly protect user privacy, at least until there is some signal (permission, etc) saying the user granted the site greater privileges.

Re: `local()` thats all great points!  I wouldn't have thought of that, but that all seems terrific!  Thanks for catching my goof :)

Re: permissions:  I don't have a strong sense about this (other than permissions discussions often rounding down to "users don't like permissions, so just grant access by default".  As long as things don't wind up there!).  But for the use case you mentioned, maybe a better norm to push for would be a service worker + site hosted fonts?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by snyderp
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4055#issuecomment-505229592 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2019 00:25:30 UTC