- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:52:41 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26332 --- Comment #108 from Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> --- (In reply to Glenn Adams from comment #105) > (In reply to David Dorwin from comment #104) > > We have identified broad privacy-invasive and security-compromising > > issues/functionality/features that are not currently normatively disallowed. > > Since those privacy-invasive and security-compromising issues and features > > are not normatively addressed and disallowed, respectively, we should > > restrict access to secure origins. > > That is an absurd statement. Cookies suffer the same problem. Does that mean > they should be restricted to secure origins? > It's not at all an absurd statement. Multiple browser vendors are exploring just that - exploring ways to restrict cookies to only secure origins, for precisely the same reasons as being discussed here. Chromium, for example, has bugs https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=149962 and https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=399416 to track these efforts. While it's quite obvious that EME provides worse privacy than cookies - as it offers a way to cryptographically bind a persistent identifier, rather than the existing cookie mechanisms which provide no such assurances (as they can easily be copied) - the fact that cookies exist is by no means an acceptable justification for further eroding privacy. Regardless, it's clear from this bug that the opponents towards a secure origin requirement are not making concrete suggestions for dealing with these privacy concerns. The only options that have been put forth so far are doing nothing in the spec - which is ignoring the problem entirely - or to place a requirement in the spec for secure origins, and then work towards a consensus that can alleviate these concerns. Since it's clear that "doing nothing" is not an acceptable solution for anyone, from the TAG, to UAs, to users, the onus needs to be on those who object to secure origins to make concrete and actionable proposals to reduce that. But if no proposals can be made, secure origins are logically the least that a UA can do to address the concerns. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 27 October 2014 00:52:43 UTC