W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Proposed new text for noaccess

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 20:13:42 +0100
Message-ID: <52794366.60701@alvestrand.no>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
CC: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 11/05/2013 07:54 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 5 November 2013 08:38, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> In my mind, a 'noaccess' stream and a stream awaiting user-permissions are
>> similar and could work the same:
> I'm thinking now that offering the ability to construct streams and
> tracks attached to any source, without user interaction, is going to
> work.  That would have to cause the tracks to gain the properties of a
> "noaccess" track.  At that point, I agree that the UA can render (or
> not) those streams however it chooses.  gUM is used to elevate access
> to peeridentity or unconstrained.

This is tempting .... just saying that grabbing a stream gives you a
black stream until permission is given. But I think we'd also have to
put some kind of event or callback on the stream so that JS could know
that permission was granted. Showing the user black when the user
expects a face is a bad user experience.

BTW, I'll repeat what I said before in another context: if we change
getUserMedia's behaviour, I'd much prefer to see a new call that is NOT
called getUserMedia, and a short Javascript snippet that shows how to
emulate getUserMedia on top of the new function (which has a new name).

> With respect to the light coming on, I note that Firefox offers a way
> to revoke access to plugins on pages.  Maybe that shows that there is
> a way out here.  If you don't like the light coming on when you visit
> google.com, revoke access when it first happens and never see it
> again.
> BTW, I didn't find your other email.  Archive links are far more
> reliable than times.  That said, I don't think that any of the options
> offered ended up with double-permissions-dialog problems.

Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 19:14:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:43 UTC