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

Re: PFWG comments on HTML Media Capture ( LC-2636)

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:31:46 -0400
Message-ID: <50606ED2.8000602@w3.org>
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
CC: public-device-apis@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
Ok, it's useful to know the word was chosen carefully. More than one of
us independently wondered about the term though, so perhaps your
suggestion of adding a reference to clarify the intended meaning would
be helpful. This level of detail is getting beyond the level of WG-to-WG
coordination though, so just take that as a friendly note from a couple
individual readers. The PFWG acceptance of your disposition of this
comment stands. Michael

Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
> Michael
> "Implicit consent" has specific meaning in privacy community work,
> meaning that consent is given through action with an understanding of
> the import, as opposed to "express consent" (or explicit consent)
> granted by signing a form for example.
> Thus this is not colloquial usage and for that reason  I would suggest
> to keep the existing language. We might consider adding a reference to
> the Web Application Privacy Best Practices Note[1]; or reference
>   Opinion 15/2011 on the definition of consent
> <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2011/wp187_en.pdf> which
> goes into more detail directly (it is referenced from the Note)
> regards, Frederick
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-app-privacy-bp-20120703/
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 12:54 PM, ext Michael Cooper wrote:
>> Thank you for your comment. The proposed addition addresses the
>> concern we raised, but we have an editorial "friendly amendment".
>> Where the addition says "... giving implicit consent ..." we suggest
>> to replace "implicit" with "explicit", or to drop that qualifier.
>> While "implicit" can mean "unreserved" it also can mean "implied,
>> rather than expressly stated", which conveys a different meaning than
>> is probably intended. The word "explicit" means "fully and clearly
>> expressed or demonstrated" and is probably the intent. If that is
>> not, or if it still seems confusing, it might be better just to drop
>> the qualifier, which could raise more questions than add clarity.
>> Just saying "... giving consent ..." may be sufficient.
>> We hope you will take this edit to minimize ambiguity, but in any
>> event the PFWG formally accepts your disposition of comment LC-2636.
>> Michael
>> frederick.hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
>>>  Dear Michael Cooper ,
>>> The Device APIs Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the
>>> Last Call Working Draft [2] of the HTML Media Capture published on 12 Jul
>>> 2012. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to
>>> send us comments!
>>> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
>>> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
>>> public-device-apis@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 18 September
>>> 2012. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
>>> solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
>>> consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
>>> formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
>>> transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
>>> Track.
>>> Thanks,
>>> For the Device APIs Working Group,
>>> Dave Raggett
>>> Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
>>> W3C Staff Contacts
>>>  1. http://www.w3.org/mid/502ABF7F.1020705@w3.org
>>>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-media-capture-20120712/
>>> =====
>>> Your comment on 4. Security and privacy considerations This specification
>>> b...:
>>>> The Protocols and Formats Working Group took a quick look at the HTML
>>>> Media Capture specification
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-media-capture-20120712/. In a
>>>> teleconference discussion, minuted at
>>>> https://www.w3.org/2012/07/18-pf-minutes.html, we had the following
>>>> comments:
>>>>     * The specification should make explicit statements about security
>>>>       expectations, e.g., requesting permission before turning the
>>>>       microphone on in order to capture from it.
>>> Working Group Resolution (LC-2636):
>>> Text added to to the Security and Privacy Considerations section  
>>> "The user agent should not enable any device for media capture, such as a
>>> microphone or camera, until a user interaction giving implicit consent is
>>> completed. A user agent should also provide an indication when such an
>>> input device is enabled and make it possible to terminate such capture.
>>> Similarly, the user agent should allow the user:
>>> * to select the exact media capture device to be used if there exists
>>> multiple devices of the same type (e.g. a front-facing camera in addition
>>> to a primary camera).
>>> * to disable sound capture when in the video capture mode."
>>> see http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/#security
>>> diff
>>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2009/dap/camera/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.133;r2=1.134;f=h
>>> ----
>> -- 
>> Michael Cooper
>> Web Accessibility Specialist
>> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
>> E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
>> Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>


Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 14:33:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:55 UTC