Re: Technical Review of EME (DRM in HTML5)

(BCC public-tracking and CC public-privacy.)

While part of this request explicitly mentions the Tracking Preference Expression, I think the general request about thinking through the privacy implications is more relevant to the Privacy Interest Group than the Tracking Protection Working Group.

On Jan 29, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Manu Sporny <> wrote:

> +CC: Tracking Protection WG (search for 'privacy')

> I don't see anything about the privacy implications that the EME
> specification raises. The HTML Media WG should work with the TPWG to
> make sure all privacy matters are dealt with by folks that seem to care
> more about privacy than you seem to.

On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Mark Watson <> wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2013, at 9:36 AM, "Manu Sporny" <> wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 02:19 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>>>> How does the spec ensure that it works with the Tracking
>>>> Preference Expression specifications?
>>> I think this is up to browsers to determine. If a CDM includes 
>>> capabilities that enable any given kind of tracking then that CDM 
>>> should obviously be rendered inoperable by user preference settings 
>>> that prohibit such tracking.
>> How will the browser have any idea that the CDM is engaging in this
>> activity?
> As I said, I would expect browsers
> To be quite particular about the CDMs they support, including requiring quite detailed information about the CDM so that they can properly asses the privacy risks etc.

We have discussed functionality for the Tracking Preference Expression spec to potentially be exposed to a browser's plugin architecture. As I'm not intimately familiar with the EME spec, perhaps Manu or others could help explain the potential privacy impacts so we'd be better able to organize a privacy review.


Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 02:08:10 UTC