- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:48:11 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2014-02-24 19:59, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 24 February 2014 07:31, Stefan Håkansson LK > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: >> But to get me on the right page: the idea with connecting the identity >> with the tracks is to be able to inform the user in the permission >> prompt that the media can only be sent to a certain user. Is that right? > > Correct. I believe that "trust" is something that should be scoped > appropriately, always. I agree. I think (as Cullen says in another input) that we could move all of it to the WebRTC document as long this deals only with communication. But I was thinking about other use cases. Would there be a value if an app could ask for access to the camera/microphone, and it was clear to the user that it could not be sent anywhere or accessed in any way? I was thinking about use cases like using the camera and display like a mirror. I don't know if there is any value in this kind of functionality, but if so I think it belongs in the gUM document. >
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 07:48:36 UTC