Re: [rtcweb] Conditions for long-term permissions grants

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
> stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/03/15 19:50, Justin Uberti wrote:
>> > I think we should follow the precedent that has been set for this sort
>> > of thing on mobile devices, namely that apps ask for consent the first
>> > time they need the camera, and this permission is stored, as mentioned
>> > in
>> >
>> http://useyourloaf.com/blog/2014/07/16/ios-8-camera-privacy-settings.html
>> .
>>
>> Personally I don't agree (more on why below), but my takeaway from that
>> is that we should perhaps leave the document as is since it is unlikely
>> that we would find consensus if we try to add more detail on the
>> behavior regarding stored permissions in a normative part of the spec.
>>
>
> As I mentioned, we can't leave the documents as-is because the IETF
> document requires the W3C document to do something it doesn't do.
> We could leave the W3C document silent, but then we have to change
> the IETF document.
>
>
>
>> Why I don't agree: I think there is a difference between an installed
>> app and a web page. Installing an app is a much more conscious decision
>> than, there is (usually) an app store involved, and an app can be
>> uninstalled (of course you can revoke stored permissions - but that is
>> not as intuitive to the average user IMO).
>>
>> Moreover, it is quite easy to imagine sites to ask for access to camera
>> and microphone (e.g. get support during a purchase in a web shop) in
>> situations when you really like that access to be one time (I'd not like
>> that web shop to be able too use my camera next time I'm browsing its
>> pages).
>>
>> And https is a good thing, but not sufficient IMO. Most sites will move
>> there (and don't get me wrong: that is a good thing), so I'm not sure
>> that "served over https" always equals "well behaved" and in addition
>> not all of those sites will be professionally managed and could be
>> hacked. So my very personal opinion is that allowing any site (served
>> over https) to store permissions to use camera and microphone without my
>> explicit permission to do so is not right.
>>
>
> Another argument against allowing HTTPS-only sites to be persistent
> without any user input is that it violates the principle of least
> astonishment.
>
>
I don't see why this is astonishing, given that this is the interaction
model many users are used to from mobile.

I grant that there is some difference between web sites and installed apps,
but whether this difference is significant enough to contraindicate
persistence seems to be an open question.

I could certainly imagine having some sort of "We'll remember this
permission for you" notification after the permission grant.