- From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 16:14:55 -0700
- To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > Sure. You're getting off onto the tangent of opportunistic encryption, > rather than really talking about the gUM issue. I'll post one quick rebuttal > here, and then I intend to let the issue alone on this list (since it's > several steps removed from the media capture charter). It's a bit of a tangent, I agree. And I apologize for not making it clear that I believe all of these questions are intertwined: * Why should we pay the cost of developing and deploying a security mechanism if its guarantee is not strong enough to justify even a 1-bit a user-visible promise? Keep in mind that resources spent defeating purely passive attacks are resources that cannot be spent on stronger mechanisms. * Why should users trust an origin that cannot make a promise? (With their cameras and microphones?) * Why should we believe the cost differential between active and passive attack is large?
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 23:15:22 UTC