W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Response from Director to formal objection "Turn off EME by default and activate only with express permission from user"

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:51:47 -1100
Message-ID: <CAE1ny+48CULMkENwZYS-EqMei4TUa_Ar3RiUYFrgj+Z1nG0rTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:33 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> > On Apr 12, 2017, at 13:41 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 12, 2017, at 11:55 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> > > > I said, contra Mark's agrument that browser vendors are neutral,
> that there is collusion
> > >
> > > OK, earlier you accused me of not reading.  The *definition* of the
> word you used — collusion — is that it is secret or illegal activity
> intended to cheat or deceive, and I gave you verbatim one such definition
> above. Did you read it?
> > >
> > > David - I don't have at hand the precise dictionaries you do.
> >
> > I assure you that the word you used is always pejorative. For example
> “is collusion pejorative?” typed into Google yields, as the first hit, The
> Columbia Guide to American Standard English, which says (again, verbatim):
> >
> > "collude, collusion: these words are always pejorative; they involve
> cooperation for dishonest, illegal, unethical,, or immoral purposes. To
> collude is “to connive”."
> >
> > > Yes, because above. You are throwing around accusations based on a
> dictionary definition you find convenient to avoid the objection.
> >
> > Now you are being insulting again. Please stop.
> >
> > > Do you think browser implementers are always neutral?
> >
> > I have very little idea what you mean by neutral here. If we get back to
> the discussion, you could explain. I do not believe that there is any
> collusion going on in the industry.
> >
> > > I would prefer a reasonable argument to emotional demands for
> apologies and intentional misreading of words,
> >
> > I would also prefer a reasoned argument over wild accusations; I rather
> hoped you would apologize and we would move on.
> >
> > > and I do not apologize nor retract the rather self-evident statement
> that the various parts of components, which include browsers, work in ways
> that can indeed be collusion (see EC ruling on Google link earlier) and can
> but are of course not necessarily illegal.
> >
> > And so you dig in deeper.
> >
> >
> > Again, whether or not particular companies are engaged in collusion and
> to what extent it is illegal is up to courts to decide, not me.
> It is up to you whether or not you use insulting, pejorative, language.
> Maybe you didn’t think it was; maybe you think it merely means that people
> work together. It’s pejorative. Please stop using the word, withdraw the
> accusation, and apologize for having used it, unless you mean to be
> insulting (whereupon we have a different problem).
> > Again, I think it's collusion but not illegal, as it's likely legal due
> to the fact it's happening in a reputable standards body.  I do not mean
> the term 'collusion' in a pejorative manner, but this is a self-evident
> part of multi-sided markets with platforms the existing top three browser
> vendors.
> There is no other meaning of the word. It is not a synonym for more
> neutral words.
> > On an aside, rather than denying there is interaction between various
> parts of a company as you seem to be doing,
> Again, you’re putting words in my mouth, for the second time; that’s also
> insulting. Please stop doing that as well.
> So far, I am still waiting for you to withdraw the accusation, apologize,
> and then express something both that you mean and that is not insulting,
> before I am willing to engage you further.

Since I believe it is not pejorative (it's a legal possibility being
explored by the EC and possibly others) and you do, we have a principled
disagreement. Furthermore, I would appreciate if you stopped trying to
avoid the actual topic of whether or not a user has the right to turn-on
EME/DRM, and thus EME should be off by default.

I would assume you are not dodging the technical substance of the formal
objection even though you deleted all technical content of the email to
dwell on your feelings. So, please explain how the UA has the right to
decide over the user, or how the possible EME+CDM is not a security/privacy

I am also very worried that there appears no one from Apple with any
background in security actually monitoring this list or the concerns around
sandboxing. Let's remain on topic and in scope, as well as within


> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 21:52:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:19 UTC