W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Proposal for device "enumeration"

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:46:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVN=YJQ0KdFwkq-Ur931ptHAxYnL0TjfKupnS71eYFerw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Cc: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 7 December 2012 10:29, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I say less because my exposure doesn't tie-in to any device-specific data to create the identifier. If the one-way hash you propose is ever compromised, then it might be possible to start to correlate specific devices. But other than that, yes, they are essentially the same.

That was an example method of what an implementation could do, not the
canonical method.  You could equally persist mappings on a per-origin
basis and create far less exposure.

> I understand this. I'm just not convinced that devices are going to change that often.

You obviously use communication devices very differently to me.  My
devices change constantly.  I have devices at the office and home.  My
Skype installation knows of at least 5 microphones and 3 cameras and
the subset of those that are connected change often.  The builtin mic
and camera are awful, but they serve when I'm travelling; my apple
monitor at my desk has both, and these are marginally better; the
headset is good for one-to-one calls; and I frequently borrow a
colleague's speaker device for group calls.  I no longer worry about
things because the application has remembered my priorities and it
chooses the right behavior based on what is currently present.  Having
to fight with settings every time I launch the app would be a
deal-breaker.

--Martin
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 18:47:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:13 UTC