Re: no longer possible to detect battery presence? RE: Battery API in Last Call from Jonas Sicking on 2011-12-01 (public-device-status@w3.org from December 2011)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 15:50:35 -0800
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: olli@pettay.fi, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "public-device-status@w3.org" <public-device-status@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-PZEVORi+AGXoBwX3vm26n2e+_VW0tVMd1VswGU2Ktvg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> that's ridiculous; you might as well argue that the presence or absence of
> the battery API itself is a privacy violation, since it allows some
> fingerprinting

It is fully correlated with the UA string, so it provides no
additional information beyond what has already been exposed for over a
decade.

/ Jonas

Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 23:51:39 UTC