- From: Thomson, Martin <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:55:21 -0500
- To: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>, "Alissa Cooper" <acooper@cdt.org>
- Cc: "Erik Wilde" <dret@berkeley.edu>, <public-geolocation@w3.org>, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>
Hi Doug, I think that Alissa's concern relates more to the "stealth" aspect. If I previously granted access to 'example.com', they are then able to stealthily include iframes all over their ad network that capture my location. Restricting to parent documents (and maybe allowing iframes from the same source) allows for better reporting and awareness. You see, only the parent displays on the UA UI, so that's the only source that the user can be expected to be fully aware of. --Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-geolocation- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Turner > Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2009 7:46 AM > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: Erik Wilde; public-geolocation@w3.org; Rigo Wenning > Subject: Re: Additional security and privacy considerations? > > I am not sure if there is any precedent for this. > > fwiw, in your example, pages containing an iframe will be of a > different document origin, UAs will be prompting separately. In other > words, if "a" contains the geolocation request, and sites x, y, and z > include "a" as a iframe, the user is going to see 3 UI prompts. > > Doug > > On May 20, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > Is there precedent in other specs for restricting access to the > > parent document? Although it may not become a mainstream practice, I > > have a pretty good feeling that once this API gets out there some > > service provider or ad network will start using iframes to track a > > user's location across different sites based on a single consent. If > > there isn't a strong argument for allowing access from iframes, I > > think it makes sense to restrict geolocation to parents. > > > > Alissa > > > > On May 18, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Doug Turner wrote: > > > >> erik, > >> > >> I am not sure I follow the argument. so, say urchin.js starts > >> requesting geolocation. That would mean that _EVERY_ site that you > >> visit which uses this script (cnn.com, google,com, espn.com, etc) > >> would prompt the user for geolocation. We are basing asking for > >> permission on the document's origin -- not some script that it > loads. > >> > >> I did suggest before that we may want to consider restricting > >> geolocation to parent documents (eg. not allow geolocation access > >> from iframes) as a way to mitigate xss and other attacks. Is that > >> what you are thinking about here? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Doug > >> > >> On May 18, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: > >> > >>> hello. > >>> > >>> Rigo Wenning wrote: > >>>> All this can be derived from the requirement to have the user's > >>>> consent when acquiring location data as required by two EU > >>>> Directives and subsequent transposed national law. As there is > >>>> always new data sent over, the legal requirements are not met > >>>> with a one time permission for data disclosure for an > >>>> unforeseeable future. > >>> > >>> at the risk of repeating myself, i want to point out to something > >>> i sent to the list a while ago. 3rd party trackers are > >>> increasingly moving from cookies to javascript. one reason is that > >>> 3rd party cookies now can (and sometimes are) blocked by browsers, > >>> and browsers have configuration options for that. the other reason > >>> is that the information available through scripting is much richer > >>> than cookie information. imagine for a second that urchin.js, > >>> probably the most widely executed javascript on the web (the code > >>> feeding google analytics) starts requesting location information. > >>> given the fact how pervasive 3rd party tracking is these days [1], > >>> this would mean that iphone users (or any other GPS- or skyhook- > >>> enabled phones) would leave an almost perfect location trail from > >>> their phones. > >>> > >>> i think that this is in very different domain than donating my IP > >>> address or screen size or browser type to 3rd party trackers. and > >>> while i might want to use location features on web sites as soon > >>> as they start implementing them, i might not be willing to > >>> disclose my location to 3rd parties affiliated with those sites > >>> (and many of the popular web sites have an amazing number of > >>> affiliated 3rd parties). it seems to me that in case of location, > >>> this really is something that needs to be handled carefully, and i > >>> am wondering whether the browser of the future will have more "3rd > >>> party information disclosure" controls that just "3rd party > >>> cookies". > >>> > >>> kind regards, > >>> > >>> erik wilde tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814 > >>> dret@berkeley.edu - http://dret.net/netdret > >>> UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) > >>> > >>> [1] http://www2009.org/proceedings/pdf/p541.pdf > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2]
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 22:56:06 UTC