- From: Wojciech Masłowski <wmaslowski@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:12:24 +0200
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- CC: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Steve Block <steveblock@google.com>, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
W dniu 2011-06-30 15:22, Dominique Hazael-Massieux pisze: > Le jeudi 30 juin 2011 à 15:14 +0200, Wojciech Masłowski a écrit : >> Every meter maybe not, but I think an app which shows you what is on >> sale in the shop next to you could set up loads of proximity alerts near >> you when you are in a shopping center. > Well, for something that needs this kind of sensitivity, developers > could still use watchPosition() presumably; it also happens that in this > case, the battery savings would likely be minimal. > > (more precisely, the "app" would set a proximity alert for the shopping > center, and then enter into watchPosition() mode once in the center) > > Dom > > Probably watchPosition is better in that case but what I tried to say is that it would be really is hard for UA to differentiate between legit application and application which tracks you. Just asking if user allows the script to set up proximity alarms + a heuristic to warn user about possible tracking and ask him if he wants to retract his permissions is an interesting idea, but it will only work if the heuristic is quite accurate. If it is too strict and falsely detects tracking too often then users will start to ignore the warnings, if it is too lenient and then it doesn't adequate provide protection. Worse, I fully expect people to reverse engineer it and learn to work around it which would defeat the whole purpose. -- Wojciech Masłowski Engeneering CORE Wrocław Opera Software ASA http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 14:13:13 UTC