Re: [w3c/screen-orientation] Rewrite privacy considerations section (PR #215)

@annevk commented on this pull request.



>        <h2>
         Privacy and Security Considerations
       </h2>
-      <section>
-        <h3>
-          Access to aspects of a user's local computing environment
-        </h3>
-        <p>
-          The screen orientation type and angle of the device can be accessed
-          with the API specified in this document, and can be a potential
-          fingerprinting vector.
-        </p>
-      </section>
+      <p>
+        A screen's [=current orientation type|type=] and [=current orientation
+        angle|angle=] is a potential fingerprinting vector. To resist

Nit: are?

> +        A screen's [=current orientation type|type=] and [=current orientation
+        angle|angle=] is a potential fingerprinting vector. To resist
+        fingerprinting (e.g., in private browsing), user agents MAY:
+      </p>
+      <ol>
+        <li>Restrict the value return by the {{ScreenOrientation/type}}
+        attribute to {{OrientationType/"portrait-primary"}} or
+        {{OrientationType/"landscape-secondary"}} to match the screen's
+        aspect ratio.
+        </li>
+        <li>Always return `0` for the value of the {{ScreenOrientation/angle}}
+        attribute.
+        </li>
+        <li>If the screen orientation changes, not fire the <a data-link-for=
+        "ScreenOrientation">change</a> event to reveal a change to a
+        [=secondary=] orientation.

Wouldn't this encourage battery-expensive polling instead? If you support rotating in a way that changes width/height of the viewport I think we should require that something changes. But limiting it two values for type and angle each seems reasonable.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/pull/215#pullrequestreview-1138571075
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/screen-orientation/pull/215/review/1138571075@github.com>