- From: pes via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:52:07 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
I do no agree that #687 addresses this concern. 1. That PR suggests identifiers around 32 bits in length. That is enough bits to identify ~4 billion devices. Why recommend so much identifiability when the common case user will have < 10 devices on their machine? This seems like far more privacy risk than is warranted 2. I appreciate the new text, describing the "lower-entropy alternative". However, since this is presented as an alternative (and not the main recommendation), it would be worth describing why this more privacy-friendly approach is not the main suggestion. The text says "storage" but that seems odd, given that the amount of storage needed is minuscule (every device identifier, for every site i've visited, would be less storage than it takes to store my cool Marge avatar. Put differently, I appreciate that we disagree on how much privacy gain their is by using a less identifying device identifier, but I think its hard to argue that there is at least some privacy improvement (for the reasons given in https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/682#issuecomment-619271576, among others). If the WG is going to recommend an approach that isn't the most privacy-preserving (and equally as user-serving), I think its important to say why, beyond trivial storage difference. (Im not trying to draw out this disagreement, but I think its important to fully explain the "why" here) -- GitHub Notification of comment by pes10k Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/682#issuecomment-651557279 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2020 05:52:08 UTC