W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [Bug 22594] noaccess / peerIdentity as constraints

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:48:11 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF7030D@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 2014-02-24 19:59, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 24 February 2014 07:31, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> But to get me on the right page: the idea with connecting the identity
>> with the tracks is to be able to inform the user in the permission
>> prompt that the media can only be sent to a certain user. Is that right?
>
> Correct.  I believe that "trust" is something that should be scoped
> appropriately, always.

I agree.

I think (as Cullen says in another input) that we could move all of it 
to the WebRTC document as long this deals only with communication.

But I was thinking about other use cases. Would there be a value if an 
app could ask for access to the camera/microphone, and it was clear to 
the user that it could not be sent anywhere or accessed in any way?

I was thinking about use cases like using the camera and display like a 
mirror. I don't know if there is any value in this kind of 
functionality, but if so I think it belongs in the gUM document.

>


Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 07:48:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:24 UTC