- From: Shwetank Dixit <shwetankd@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 20:17:55 +0530
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 14:48:43 UTC
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Shwetank Dixit <shwetankd@opera.com> > wrote: > > To add to the point, someone can make an app using gUM without even > > involving any other part of WebRTC (like peerconnection or datachannels) > ... > > so, a gUM app doesn't always have to be about *communication*. > Considering > > such cases, I think it's fair to allow it to be using http. > > Given that operators are not afraid of injecting content into HTTP, > what would stop such an injection from sharing data made available > from getUserMedia()? > Nothing. You're right, it can still be MITM'd .... I think I'll have to revise my original position and support HTTPS-only for gUM and other such privacy sensitive APIs. > > -- > https://annevankesteren.nl/ > -- Shwetank Dixit Web Evangelist, Web Standards Team, Opera Software - www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 14:48:43 UTC