- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:06:46 -0700
- To: Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Cc: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABcZeBNjHpADNLXTL3bub4nv8p=z218EsMQy=UKOUud817vpgA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK < stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > On 10/03/15 19:50, Justin Uberti wrote: > > I think we should follow the precedent that has been set for this sort > > of thing on mobile devices, namely that apps ask for consent the first > > time they need the camera, and this permission is stored, as mentioned > > in > > > http://useyourloaf.com/blog/2014/07/16/ios-8-camera-privacy-settings.html. > > Personally I don't agree (more on why below), but my takeaway from that > is that we should perhaps leave the document as is since it is unlikely > that we would find consensus if we try to add more detail on the > behavior regarding stored permissions in a normative part of the spec. > As I mentioned, we can't leave the documents as-is because the IETF document requires the W3C document to do something it doesn't do. We could leave the W3C document silent, but then we have to change the IETF document. > Why I don't agree: I think there is a difference between an installed > app and a web page. Installing an app is a much more conscious decision > than, there is (usually) an app store involved, and an app can be > uninstalled (of course you can revoke stored permissions - but that is > not as intuitive to the average user IMO). > > Moreover, it is quite easy to imagine sites to ask for access to camera > and microphone (e.g. get support during a purchase in a web shop) in > situations when you really like that access to be one time (I'd not like > that web shop to be able too use my camera next time I'm browsing its > pages). > > And https is a good thing, but not sufficient IMO. Most sites will move > there (and don't get me wrong: that is a good thing), so I'm not sure > that "served over https" always equals "well behaved" and in addition > not all of those sites will be professionally managed and could be > hacked. So my very personal opinion is that allowing any site (served > over https) to store permissions to use camera and microphone without my > explicit permission to do so is not right. > Another argument against allowing HTTPS-only sites to be persistent without any user input is that it violates the principle of least astonishment. -Ekr
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 19:07:54 UTC