- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:40:09 -0700
- To: public-html-media@w3.org
Hi I am puzzled by a few things. > On Aug 1, 2016, at 15:42 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: > > [Note this is a formal objection as an individual in a private capacity, not on behalf of my organization] > > I'd like to fill a formal objection against Encrypted Media Extensions progressing to Proposed Recommendation status without adequate protection for users. > > I believe that this work is so problematic given the well-known and well-documented problems with DRM, I’m not sure what problems you are referring to, so I am not sure what you’d like fixed. Later in the thread it becomes “risks” which puzzles me more. > To myself, the danger of EME is that over the last year suddenly over millions of people had a content decryption module installed without their explicit consent on their computer. I don’t think it matters what the software does; any install should be a subject of consent, shouldn’t it? > For many users, such as those of Firefox, the DCM was installed via a silent update they had no control over. The CDM or the interface (EME implementation)? The latter is part of the browser. > There is prior art in HTML for similarly powerful and privacy-invasive features such as the Geolocation API [4]. Knowing someone’s location is a privacy question. I don’t see that installing a decryption module is the same. Nothing about me is communicated to anyone else as a result. Can you clarify? > Current language in the spec is so weak as it may not be enforced and so EME does not have to be disabled by default I don’t think we disable interfaces by default. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 17:40:43 UTC