Re: [rtcweb] Conditions for long-term permissions grants

I have argued in the past that we should separate the
ask-for-permissions step from the use-device step, and found that the
consensus of the group was that the two should not be separated.

However, if the group were to change its mind, it would not be illogical
to attach the "and store this permission for this origin forever or
until the user revokes it" to the ask-for-permissions step rather than
the use-device step.

This would, however, be an incompatible change from what browsers
currently do, which is to save permissions whenever they think it's
reasonable to do so.

(If we were to retrofit the explicit model of permissions storage onto
the getUserMedia joint model without an API change, we could define a
constraint called "permissionPersistence" with values "this-call" and
"until-revoked" - one could then use the constraint resolution model to
let the UA get a constraint failure if the UA refused to store the
permission, if that's a desirable function.....)

On 03/12/2015 10:48 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK 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
> 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.
> 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.

Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 10:51:05 UTC