W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > March 2012

RE: : comments of Network Information API

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:53:19 +0000
To: Niklas Widell <niklas.widell@ericsson.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Public-Device-Apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C350F488B9F@WABOTH9MSGUSR8A.ITServices.sbc.com>
Couldn't that be said for almost any action in which the user is expected to give their (presumably) informed consent? How is this different from GeoLoc or even the interaction with button/input elements etc which bring up file requesters, etc? Won't users that just blow through their browsing choices always subject themselves to risky outcomes, regardless of the API/markup context that prompted a dialog?

I believe that most fingerprinting occurs anyway without any user interaction or awareness, and unless we are to strip the Web of any richness or APIs (want to go back to Lynx, anyone?), fingerprinting will always be an issue, but one that is driven also by user choice - that of which sites they visit.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan

-----Original Message-----
From: Niklas Widell [mailto:niklas.widell@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:43 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Mounir Lamouri; Public-Device-Apis
Subject: Re: : comments of Network Information API

I think the prompt would only give a false sense of security, a typical
would user would not understand the fingerprinting issue and would just
click ok ("who could do something bad with info about my connectivity?").

Best regards,
Niklas Widell

On 2012-03-29 07:38, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com> wrote:

>I would support a requirement to obtain user permission to access this
>API, if we were able to get the type attribute back, and get beyond these
>privacy concerns.
>
>Thanks,
>Bryan Sullivan
>

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 06:54:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:53 UTC