- From: pes via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 23:34:38 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
I agree, it would be good to have a single "storage partitioning, double-keying" definition / spec, but until that exists, we need to deal with the state of standards as is. If future spec comes and makes specifying double-keying in this spec unnecessary, thats great and a perfect reason to revise this spec and remove it. But in the meantime, it seems we agree that double-keying is necessary, no? I take your point re #549, but unfortunately, if the sorry state of privacy on the web has shows anything, its that we can't rely on sites to protect user privacy; it needs to be baked into clients and standards. So, the standard needs to protect the user from a site that would like to track, not just _allow_ a site to protect the user. But either way, I'm not sure how #549 addresses what I imagine to be the typical scenario: two different sites have embedded the same origin that would like to track the user AND allow the user to use the microphone / web cam / etc.(example.org) Under the current spec, all embedded example.org's would be able to track the user, even if the user only wanted to use the webcam on embedded instance. Under a double key'ed solution that wouldn't be possible. But, a bigger question: why do you need the keying at all: why not just use something other than unique device ids. What would be _lost_ in the first suggest in the issue? Worst case, the user would need to re-grant a permission when their media set up changes. Seems reasonable? :) -- GitHub Notification of comment by snyderp Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/607#issuecomment-509848542 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2019 23:34:40 UTC