- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:16:33 +0100
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- CC: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2013-12-10 02:26, Eric Rescorla wrote: > For the record, I am opposed to this entire piece of Jan-Ivar's proposal. > > As has been observed many times, there are plenty of opportunities > for fingerprinting and so going through these gyrations to make > it fractionally more difficult is silly. I think there's more to this than only protecting against fingerprinting. IMO, prompting for the getUserMedia() *request* itself, not only if some devices survived the exclusion process have benefits. * More consistent behavior when no devices pass the constraints. When this happens in our current model, the user can be presented with anything from nothing, the app just halts, to a detailed explanation of what went wrong; depending on how the app is programmed to handle this case. You could argue that the app that does nothing is badly written (and I agree), but if we can make users lives better even in these cases I think we should. * We could offer alternative actions when no devices pass the constrains. - Ask the user to connect a new device. - Offer the user to select a media file that will act as a device (This has been a use-case from very early on). - Give the user the option to report, to the app, what went wrong so it can explain in detail why you don't have the hardware required. - Simply discard the prompt and don't expose anything to the app. This is what you would do if a getUserMedia() prompt suddenly appeared on a shady page. /Adam
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:17:01 UTC