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

Re: An alternate approach to enumerating devices

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:54:16 +0100
Message-ID: <514C5478.1090600@ericsson.com>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
I like Haralds proposal, it is an improvement over the current one IMO.

That said, I think Jim has a point. We have earlier talked about that 
no-one should be excluded from a video service because they do not have 
a camera (instead they could use a file as a "fake" camera source). With 
sourceId/sourceInfo the app could exclude users.

If you compare to the access to files on the system, the analogous 
behavior would be that the app could, without any user consent, find out 
how many files there are and what types (extensions) they are. That is 
not possible IIUC.

I would feel better if (at least) the first time used the app could not 
find out much without informing the user. And that trust given can be 
revoked.

Stefan

On 3/21/13 8:57 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> I know that most users never change the defaults, but I still think
> that some of these difficulties are reduced if we give the user
> multiple security settings: 1.  "don't tell apps anything" (i.e., the
> app must call gUM to get any information at all) 2.  "tell them if I
> have video/audio, but nothing more"  (i.e. before the app calls gUM)
> 3.  "let them see labels, facing info, etc."
>
> (If we introduce a distinction between trusted and untrusted apps,
> the levels above would apply to untrusted ones, I would think.)  This
> way the (few) people who understand the situation and care can get
> the behavior that they want.
>
> - Jim -----Original Message----- From: Harald Alvestrand
> [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:38 PM
> To: public-media-capture@w3.org Subject: Re: An alternate approach to
> enumerating devices
>
> On 03/21/2013 08:23 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
>> It may just be that the format is odd on my system, but is 'facing'
>> available if the app is not trusted?
> Opinions sought .... "facing" was the last thing I added. Exposing it
> means that the drive-by web now can make a very good guess on whether
> you're a phone or a PC; not exposing it means that the app has to do
> at least one camera grab blind (see other thread).
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 12:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:15 UTC