- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:13:32 -0700
- To: David Bennett <ddt@google.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3c.org" <public-webapps@w3c.org>
- Message-ID: <5dd9e5c50909171413m31d64845i2e280619cbde2555@mail.gmail.com>
I don't believe that's what Frederick is talking about. Also, fuzzing and rounding don't apply to the proposal you just sent out since it's now just an event (rather than a timer based API). I think there is some merit to Jonas and Frederick's comments. We are leaking more information (but not a lot more) about a users habits than we did before. I haven't responded to them yet because I don't have a good answer. :-) On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:08 PM, David Bennett <ddt@google.com> wrote: > This is why we changed the resolution to be a second, it is a lot harder to > figure out traffic analysis and user analysis patterns with the lower > resolution idle information. > We discussed adding some fuzzing into the data returned, for example > rounding all results to be on a 15 second boundary, or on a minute boundary, > this sounds reasonable to me too if it will reduce privacy issues and > traffic analysis problems. > > Thanks, > David. > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Frederick Hirsch < > frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote: > >> isn't the mere knowledge of the level of activity on a device a possible >> privacy concern, and couldn't the pattern of activity offer a traffic >> analysis type opportunity? >> >> regards, Frederick >> >> Frederick Hirsch >> Nokia >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 17, 2009, at 1:35 PM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com> >>> wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:05:58 +0200, David Bennett <ddt@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I have a proposal for an extension to javascript to enable browsers to >>> access system idle information. Please give me feedback and suggestions >>> on the proposal. >>> >>> >>> What exactly are the security and privacy implications of detecting >>> system >>> idle activity in the browser? >>> >>> As far as I know, there really aren't any. This was discussed on WhatWG >>> (before being directed here) and IIRC there were no serious security or >>> privacy concerns. The minimum resolution of the event makes attacks based >>> on keystroke timing impossible. Some people suggested that web apps could >>> do something "bad" while the user is away, but I don't think anyone could >>> come up with a good example of something "bad". Can you think of any >>> specific concerns? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: >>> Hi David, >>> >>> >>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 00:05 , David Bennett wrote: >>> I have a proposal for an extension to javascript to enable browsers to >>> access system idle information. Please give me feedback and suggestions on >>> the proposal. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> SUMMARY >>> >>> There currently is no way to detect the system idle state in the browser. >>> For example this makes it difficult to deal with any sort of chat room or >>> instant messaging client inside the browser since the idle will always be >>> incorrect; or allow for apps to control their speed or network resources >>> when a user is idle. >>> >>> This sounds like it /could/ (not sure and no promises) be an area of work >>> for DAP, given that it is about device/system information, and given that I >>> would expect the user to be in very solid control of the security policy >>> granting access to such information. I guess it could perhaps be exposed as >>> a system property, part of the System Information work. >>> >>> I'm not sure this is the type of API we need to ask the user about. Web >>> apps can already detect when you're on their page, so I'm not sure how >>> valuable the additional information you would be leaking is. I'd assume >>> browsers could have a big hammer like "disable idle reporting" for any users >>> who are particularly concerned. >>> >>> >>> In case it's not clear, I think this is a good proposal and all my >>> concerns were addressed in previous threads: >>> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-August/022443.html >>> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 21:14:32 UTC