- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:39:23 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Anne, I note that almost every statement you've made in this thread is in the form of a question. It's actually hard to tell from your questions what you see as a problem. I suggest that you might want to draw up a note of the form: - Given that getUserMedia is available to HTTP origins - The following bad thing can happen - There's no way to defend against it (for HTTP) - and I think that's such a Bad Thing that it is worth ditching present uses of HTTP to prevent it It might be easier to have a discussion on that basis than to figure out what the questions mean. Den 29. sep. 2014 13:34, skrev Anne van Kesteren: > 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()? > >
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 12:39:54 UTC