- From: guest271314 via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 20:41:24 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
@npdoty The fundamental objection is wanton use of the term "privacy" without accompanying primary source definition. As of 1999 it was possible to analyze 20TB of data per second in "real-time" http://agoodamerican.org/ . `WebRTC` exposes IP addresses. `MediaStreamTrack` from `getDisplayMedia()` is set to `mute` with _non_-action by user https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-screen-share/issues/141. The interwebs were not designed to be secure and are not secure right now, so the term "privacy" relevant to web platform applications is not applicable - unless you can provide a reproducible use case where _any_ web _or_ device usage is absolutely "private", e.g., from a random article https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/01/14/the-fbi-has-the-tools-it-ne, https://www.wired.com/2016/09/heres-fbi-hacked-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone/. If we are _really_ discussing "privacy" then we need to be honest about the fact that _all_ signal communications can be intercepted. What is nonsensical is to not begin with the premise there is no such thing as "privacy" relevant to web platform applications, and from there _try_ to mitigate exposure, if that is important. > This document does not attempt to provide a single unifying definition of "privacy" is a glaring omission. Essentially from such a starting position, since "privacy" is not clearly defined, there is no way to test any theory that any mitigation efforts are successful or failures, giving rise to this fundamental question: How to reproduce "privacy" using the scientific method, by any means? -- GitHub Notification of comment by guest271314 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-record/issues/142#issuecomment-650818883 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2020 20:41:28 UTC