On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> wrote:
> Looks like Spotify, Dropbox, and a lot of unspecified applications from
> people who don't understand we're planning to offer an opt-in via ACAO or
> the like.
>
Well, at the time it wasn't clear that we were. My initial stab at this
certainly didn't. "My thinking on this issue has evolved."
> Spotify and Dropbox, at least, are modern software projects that can add
> the header in an update (and have updates).
>
Dropbox, I'm sure, will have no problems. I'm more concerned about the
amount of angry emails I'll get from enterprise folks, but, you know.
Progress.
> I'm dubious about the trustworthiness of devices, and I imagine that Super
>> Awesome Refrigerator 2000 is more likely to want to be chatty about its
>> contents than I am. I'm not sure that abdicating that decision to the
>> device manufacturer is a good idea in general.
>>
>
> I'm somewhat confident that SAR 2000 is developed by people who will not
> opt into internet communication, and will instead leak what it knows by
> more mundane means. :)
>
But. but, SAR 2000 could automatically order milk for you! Or, you know,
tell https://grocery.evil.com/ that you totally need milk and that it
should raise the price a bit. In any event, IoT is scary.
But, all that having been said, if we are going to prompt people *after *the
> internal origin has already opted in, then it will (I believe) still be
> rare enough to not be too much of an annoyance.
>
Oh. That's clever. I was thinking of doing the prompt before the request,
but sandwiching a permission request/interstitial/whatever between the
preflight and the request sounds like a good idea.
-mike