Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] WebXR Raw Camera Access API (#652)

Hi @bialpio - very sympathetic to your point that developers will just use `getUserMedia` if this API doesn't provide the functionality they need. I think we want to make sure that developers make use of this API (and the WebXR stack in general) when they are doing AR or VR on the web.  AR on the web was not possible until long after GetUserMedia was written, so perhaps there needs to be a bigger discussion about permissions and prompting and risks of camera access in general - but that shouldn't block this work.    

A privacy principles document including some threat model info is in development right now.  We expect to have a first public working draft available soon. In the mean time, you can take a look at some of the relevant design principles such as [it should be safe to visit a web page](https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/#safe-to-browse) and [ask users for meaningful consent when appropriate](https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/#consent).  To be clear: I am concerned about the threat model of web apps hat collect more data than they should and use it for purposes other than what the person using the ap expects. This concern is significantly amplified when the web application has access to the device's live video feed for a significant period of time. The thrust of the [Ethical Web Principles](https://w3ctag.github.io/ethical-web-principles/) (which was written to inform our other documents such as the design principles) is that the web must be a more ethical environment for people than other platforms (such as native apps) and it's at the design stage that we can make decisions that steer the web in that direction.

What do you think of @Sauski's suggestion that the prompting should highlight to the user that the app has requested special permission over and above regular WebXR AR?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/652#issuecomment-924333585