W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > July 2013

Re: noaccess / peerIdentity as constraints

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:33:12 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30D844@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 7/9/13 8:39 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 9 July 2013 00:48, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> * Are noaccess streams intended for hair checks only?
>
> No, the intent is that they can be sent to others.  The 'no access'
> part applies to the web application only.

OK, I think I start to get this: the main functionality is to ensure 
that a remote application can't touch the media. Right?

For the local use "noaccess" does not make a difference. The user can't 
in any way verify that all access to media is limited, the app does not 
get a shortcut to access microphone and camera. Basically the user has 
to trust the application used to apply "noaccess", and that would 
protect the media from being misused at any remote receiver.



Stefan

>
>> * Should there be some kind of indication (in the browser chrome) that
>> all access to cameras/microphones is of type "noaccess"?
>
> The indicators would be roughly the same as normal: yes the camera is
> on, and (if sending) the identity of the receiver of that stream.
>
>> * Would "noaccess" mean that the user would not have to give consent
>> (since the app can do no harm with the media) to accessing input devices?
>
> Consent would still be required.
>


Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 06:33:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:18 UTC