2016-02-03 2:24 GMT+00:00 Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>: > I think that is too 'abstract' - not too clear what learning means. > > I'd suggest, "Being able to distinguish hardware support for vibration (or > lack thereof) can contribute to the information allowing for > fingerprinting, a privacy risk". > "the possibility of distinguishing between implementations supporting vibration ..."? > > If that isn't what is meant, then I think we need to be even more clear. > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP) > > www.fjhirsch.com > @fjhirsch > > > On Feb 2, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > 2016-02-02 14:16 GMT+00:00 Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com > >: > > > On 01 Feb 2016, at 00:31, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > But won't it allow differentiation between various hardwares/settings, > based on this method? > > > If so, we can consider documenting it. > > > > You're right in that the most likely reason false is returned is that > the vibration hardware is not present. This should be noted in the errata. > Feel free to propose text. > > > > > > How about: > > > > "In case of implementations or devices not providing access to the > hardware vibration capability, the fact that the API allows learning this > may be used to enhance fingerprinting of the user's system" > > > > Best > > Lukasz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Anssi > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 21:57:27 UTC