- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:55:14 -0800
- To: Ben Pedrick <ben@tokbox.com>
- Cc: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Speaking purely from a security perspective, once the site has access to the media, then the cat is out of the bag. At best, additional dialogs in chrome serve only to annoy. At worst, it means that applications will jump through extra hoops to perform recording. In any case, browser-based recording might be a poor choice for applications that intend to store media on a server. Sending the media to a server to have it recorded there will encounter no consent-gates other than the gUM one, regardless of our choice here. On 16 January 2013 10:54, Ben Pedrick <ben@tokbox.com> wrote: > We found that 11 states require all parties to know and consent to being > recorded, which is different from consenting to use the camera for a live > conversation. If your application needs to meet a local legislative requirement regarding consent and awareness, then that can be implemented by the application.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 23:55:42 UTC