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

Re: Comments on scenarios doc - 9 Feb Version

From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:00:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4F3425EF.3070603@jesup.org>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 2/9/2012 10:10 AM, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
> (5) picture-in-picture
> Is this really picture-in-picture, or capture of multiple time-sync'd videos that can subsequently be edited? Sounds like the latter.

I think Travis added this after I commented on the list; in any case I 
was driving towards synchronized capture from both cameras, not locally 
composited before saving. You could make an argument that local 
compositing and recording multiple streams are equivalent from this view 
of the spec (in terms of requirements), but I think they're different in 
how users understand them.  If the requirements work out the same, I'm 
ok with it.

> (6) Add to 5.1.1 privacy
> Add
> "In addition, care must be taken that webcam and audio devices are not able to record and stream data without the user's knowledge.
> Explicit permission should be granted for a specific activity of a limited duration.  Configuration controls should be possible to enable age-limits on webcam use."
> I'm not sure how to address concerns about age and granting permissions, I believe there have been some "child exploitation center" concerns noted in the UK regarding
> children being mislead into using video inappropriate. Possible issue.

To an extent we handle the 'age' issue by saying the browser/etc should 
give a visual indication the camera is on, and a way to disable it that 
app can't interfere with.  (Browser chrome, for example.)  I think 
you'll find a good UI for aged permissions will be tough.

> (7) 5.1.2 privacy Issues
> add
> 4.  Enabling control configuration of webcam based on age?
> 5. Phishing and other attacks using webcam, audio (possible issue to note)
> (8) section 5.4 stopping
> rather than muting, isn't the alternative to "pause" the capture?

Yes; muting is appropriate for real-time interactive uses and might 
replace video with an image or black.

> (9) 5.5 pre-processing
> support of something like "zakim, mute george" seems very valuable.
> gain control might be tricky if it enhances unwanted background noise on a specific un-muted input.
> Sounds like there is enough work in v1 to suggest not including video pre-processing, as is suggested in issue 1.

Processing media streams would seem to me to be a separate (though 
related) discussion from capture.  Robert O'Callahan's Media Stream 
Processing proposal, for example.

Randell Jesup
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 20:02:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:08 UTC