Re: [Bug 22594] noaccess / peerIdentity as constraints

There's certainly value in letting the user know that the media can't be 
recorded.  I think that the core concept of an identity constraint 
belongs in MediaCapture.  Then the other specs can define exactly what 
that constraint means in their case.

- Jim
On 2/25/2014 2:48 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> 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.
>
>

-- 
Jim Barnett
Genesys

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 14:11:08 UTC