- From: Sun Shin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 01:26:32 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
> thank you for the link @xingri. Just to make sure i understand correctly, option1 then would leave `powerEfficientDecoder` as is (i.e. hardware check to access), but would add another property called `decoderFallback` that would not need hardware check? That is correct. > > if `decoderFallback` is (always or almost always) just the opposite of `powerEfficientDecoder`, im not sure thats a privacy improvement. Basically, I agree with you that it can be considered equally. However, based on my understanding on the Finger Printing protection is to protect the UserAgent identification. If that is correct, decoder fallback couldn't be used to identify the User Agent since the decoder fallback is only introduced from possible abnormality of the system and can be revoked when the system recovered. I do not think this can be used a finger printing because of that characteristics. So it gives advantage compare to the power efficiency metric. > > I think the approach in the spec of "group the fingerprinting relevant inputs together and require some high-touch event before the page can load them" is probably the right way to go. if cloud gaming folks need a way to get access to these stats that isn't `getUserMedia()` related, figuring out how to define that high-touch event might be the best way forward (for my 2c) -- GitHub Notification of comment by xingri Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-stats/issues/730#issuecomment-1451138885 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2023 01:26:33 UTC