Re: [vibration] Suggested changes for the Rec errata and Proposed Edited Rec

Hello,

Apologies for the delay.

Vibration standard currently has no privacy considerations. And even if on
its own it may not exhibit issues here, it is known that in in conjunction
with other sources this is not so easy to ascertain.

For example, causing vibration of a device and reading the output of
accelerometer - can allow fingerprinting by imperfections in the
accelerometer sensors.

For more information we can consult, e.g.:
http://synrg.csl.illinois.edu/papers/AccelPrint_NDSS14.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1416v1.pdf

For the current vibration standard, why not include some privacy
considerations i.e. "even if on it's own this API is unlikely to create
privacy risks, it is known that in conjunction with other APIs it can be
used to fingerprint the user's device"?

For the generic, let's wait and bake a more versatile approach.

I'll make my PDF public asap (I think it can be shared in a closed loop of
pre-reviews even now...)

2016-02-09 16:04 GMT+01:00 Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>:

> Hi All, Frederick,
>
> As promised on the call last week, I've prepared a Pull Request [1] with
> the proposed changes for your review.
>
> These suggested changes that revise the Vibration API Rec spec [2] should
> be added to the errata and/or to be used for the Proposed Edited Rec.
>
> I've also migrated the Editor's Draft spec [3] from CVS to Git retaining
> all of its history to enable a more modern workflow and facilitate better
> collaboration.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/vibration/pull/1
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/
> [3] https://w3c.github.io/vibration/
>
>
>