RE: Technical Review of EME (DRM in HTML5)

Dear Christine,

You might be interested in the following objection from the PUA CG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0048.html

I think this is huge privacy and security threat to the web.  I would
be ashamed if we passed on a DRM web legacy to the next generation,
and this is contrary to the charter of the PUA CG.  I hope you will take
up the cause.

cheers
Fred


> From: runnegar@isoc.org
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:53:02 +0100
> CC: walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl; public-tracking@w3.org; tjwhalen@gmail.com; public-privacy@w3.org
> To: npdoty@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Technical Review of EME (DRM in HTML5)
> 
> Thanks Nick.
> 
> We'll take up your suggestion and see if we can schedule a discussion at the next Privacy Interest Group (PING) call.
> 
> Christine and Tara
> PING co-chairs
> 
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:52 AM, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2/3/13 6:33 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> >>> On 01/30/2013 02:19 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
> >>>>>> For some, a simple CDM implementation like clear key decryption 
> >>>>>> is sufficient, because they aren't delivering very high value 
> >>>>>> content, and key protection isn't necessary.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This contradicts what Mark Watson, one of the editors of the spec,
> >>>>> has stated, which is:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> "[Clear Key] doesn't constitute any kind of DRM or content 
> >>>>> protection scheme."
> >>>> 
> >>>> You are looking for division where there really is none.
> >> 
> >> Can somebody explain why this is crossposted, what it is about and why
> >> it is relevant to DNT?
> > 
> > Per my message on February 3rd, I think this message is of more relevance to the public-privacy mailing list than our mailing list, and I tried to move the thread there.
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/mid/02B98900-BF0A-476A-A8B3-EEE2249840B6@w3.org
> > 
> >> I'm genuinely confused and really don't feel like diving into the HTML5
> >> intricacies.
> > 
> > I believe there was a concern from an HTML WG member that a particular privacy issue was arising in a proposed spec for encrypted media extensions. I don't fully understand those details myself, and have asked for more discussion that might shed some light on a privacy review, which I think would be a suitable discussion for the Privacy Interest Group. It could be relevant to the Tracking Preference Expression spec to the extent that we have discussed making the Do Not Track signal accessible to plugins or extensions.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> 
>