- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:50:03 -0800
- To: Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Cc: jonathan chetwynd <jay@peepo.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 29 November 2012 05:21, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > I am a bit frustrated about this situation. We could hide almost everything > from the application to leak very little (but not get the best user > experience), or we could expose a lot of data to the app and leak at lot > (but get a better user experience). Then you hear two extremes to guide the > decisions: leak as little as ever possible; or this is a lost battle anyway > so don't bother. Sigh. Ultimately, it's just another trade-off we have to make. I still hold out hope for a compromise. My current hope is that gUM provides one of the following two extensions to the fingerprinting surface: (a) boolean flags for audio and video device availability (b) counts for audio and video devices I tend to think that (a) is sufficient. I harbour a small concern that the distinction between user-facing and world-facing is something that an application might want to learn, but I'd be willing to lose that as long as that was something I could set in constraints. Providing complex capabilities once consent is granted is (in my opinion) sufficient to meet the needs of applications without adding more fingerprinting bits. --Martin
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 17:50:31 UTC