- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:42:13 +0100
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, 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 2013-12-11 11:27, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Adam Bergkvist > <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Perhaps, but the only argument I have heard for why this needs to > be a specification requirement is 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. > > I totally disagree. This is a programming environment and it's not > the browser's job to displace the programmer. > > > >> * 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. > > These are all fine things, but they are exactly the kind of fine things that > the app knows better than the browser manufacturer to offer > Only being able to select a file as a media source when the app has opted in on that feature defeats the purpose of selecting a file, instead of a camera, for privacy reasons (and to not get locked out by aggressive mandatory constraints). /Adam
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 08:42:43 UTC