Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments

2016-03-03 2:10 GMT+01:00 Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> I think one thing we are getting hung up on is that, while the Vibration
> API does not, in itself conduct cross device tracking, it can be used to
> generate signals that can be received by another device in order to perform
> cross device tracking.
>

Cross-device (yet, important!) aside, a more reliable risk/tool application
of Vibration already exists, and is not far-fetched: fingerprinting other
sensors. I came up with the current write-up primarily with this in mind. I
think the rest of the "considerations" will be included in respective other
sensors (I'm already working on this).




>
> Beaconing, device fingerprinting, cross device tracking, these all
> describe the same threat model: Device A generates some sort of unique
> signal, which is picked up by device B and used to link the two devices.
>


Fingerprinting does not need to concern a device B.


>
>
> My logic was that if we limit the Vibration API to some very specific
> calls (like a dot, and a dash), it would be easier to audit use of the API.
> Yes, a developer may have to repeatedly call: dot() dash() dot() dash()
> dot() dash(), but an unusual amount of calls to the API could be a signal
> auditors use to
>


While I'm unsure if developers would like that ;-) - I certainly encourage
putting thought into transparency recommendations, and privacy UIs. Many
good things can be done by browser vendors...