Re: noaccess / peerIdentity as constraints from Martin Thomson on 2013-07-09 (public-media-capture@w3.org from July 2013)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:39:44 -0700
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVP2w-e-y3uWS--kZ742R=QRu4=kx4kL+oboNz9RsMURg@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 July 2013 00:48, Stefan Håkansson LK
<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> * Are noaccess streams intended for hair checks only?

No, the intent is that they can be sent to others.  The 'no access'
part applies to the web application only.

> * Should there be some kind of indication (in the browser chrome) that
> all access to cameras/microphones is of type "noaccess"?

The indicators would be roughly the same as normal: yes the camera is
on, and (if sending) the identity of the receiver of that stream.

> * Would "noaccess" mean that the user would not have to give consent
> (since the app can do no harm with the media) to accessing input devices?

Consent would still be required.

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 18:40:12 UTC