On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 May 2014 12:33, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > > The discussion I heard at the Media Capture TF meeting was approximately > > between two alternatives: > > > > 1) Permission persists until the device is released by all tracks sourced > > from it. > > > > 2) Permission persists until the page is closed. (This may allow > permissions > > to survive a page reload.) > > The way we communicate with users is with indicators. From that > perspective, either approach works. > > I tend to prefer the former. In the case where an application is > granted access to camera 1, we don't want to also enable access to > camera 2. I think that the latter implies a greater scope to consent > than a single one-off interaction. > > I'd also like to keep this open to a degree of interpretation. Not > all browsers will reach the same conclusions. Already, Chrome and > Firefox are demonstrably different and I think that the current > variation is within reasonable bounds. > #2 seems to clearly violate the requirement that we only allow persistent permissions when the page is loaded over HTTPS. There are plenty of long-lived HTTP pages and it's not at all OK to have them involve a long-lived permission after the camera is closed. Frankly, I thought we had resolved this point in the interim and I'mn quite surprised to see it re-raised here. -Ekr
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 03:05:20 UTC