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

Re: Proposal: "private" execution mode

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 03:04:13 +0100
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <84rf999t3qf0v339vm4a79cajrt91ms749@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* cowwoc wrote:
>So in conclusion:
>
> 1. I agree with you. We shouldn't try to protect against fingerprinting
>    at all.

I take it from the rate at which browser vendors add more and better
ways "to fingerprint" that the goal is not protection from attackers,
but rather making the "user has disabled X; you tried to work around
that; you got caught, fined, and stopped"-style flow easy and obvious.

You can take "outbound link tracking" as an example. If you use the
proposed `<a ping>` attribute, you would be using a HTML standard
feature exactly for its intended purpose. It would be hard for data
protection officials to argue you are doing something you should not.
If instead you do the same with 200 lines of convoluted JS code with
browser switches and server redirects and whatnot, it's pretty easy.

> 2. If we want to protect against fingerprinting, I still advocate
>    tackling it in a consistent manner instead of tackling each API
>    point on its own.

Actually http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html many of the
"fingerprinting" issues come from ignoring the "Principle of Least
Power" and allowing powerful machines where simpler ones suffice.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Friday, 29 November 2013 02:04:41 UTC

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