W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Comments/Questions on Media Capture Streams – Privacy and Security Considerations

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:32:37 +0900
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPb_wp4hsbmNCxaQsYdWLf_8MR0Vk+N9rqNapSwYo2V1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>, Mathieu Hofman <Mathieu.Hofman@citrix.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Nick Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
To be clear, I'm not against persistent permissions, for precisely the
reasons
that Martin indicated at the very top of this thread. I do, however, think
that
Firefox's UI of giving the user the choice to be persistent or not is
better than
Chrome's UI of just giving persistent permissions without a user prompt,
I can understand that there are arguments on the other side.

-Ekr


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 29 October 2015 at 11:46, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 October 2015 11:07:38 Martin Thomson wrote:
> >> On 29 October 2015 at 10:13, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
> >> > Not in privacy
> >>
> >> Yes in privacy.
> >
> > Depends on what you understand by "persistent". Maybe we are not even
> > disagreeing.
>
> Persistent for me is what Chrome does, or what Firefox does when you
> pick the "Always" option.  Maybe you could explain what you think
> persistent might mean other than that.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 04:33:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:34 UTC