W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Clarification on media capture split between WebRTC and DAP

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:10:18 +1000
To: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1313489418.6734.9079.camel@robslapu>
+1 for finer grained separate authorisation between streaming to a
remote server vs. streaming into a <video> or <audio> tag.  This is
essential.

It's also important for Augmented Reality that audio can be handled in
this way too...not just the visual aspect of video (e.g. images).


roBman


On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 11:21 +0200, Rich Tibbett wrote:
> Having said that, providing a stream of the camera to a web page is
> not the same as authorizing that web page to stream camera content to
> a remote server. I'd prefer to keep both aspects separate in the user 
> authorization model. For example, providing the camera to a web page 
> could be used to enable Augmented Reality experiences without the user
> having authorized any Streaming aspects. Any streaming in that use
> case would be a serious violation of that user's privacy.
> 
> >
> > I would also argue that both of these points apply just as much to 
> video
> > recording as to still image capture, since many platforms have
> native
> > camcorder UIs that expose device-appropriate functionality,
> 
> It may be possible to tweak the settings of the Stream via the UA's 
> interfaces once it has been provided to a web page. However, that
> would be out of scope of defining an API, IMO.
> 
> > and
> > finer-grained authorization is desirable in both cases.
> 
> Since one of the use cases is to stream the camera only to the web
> page for e.g. AR purposes I agree there should be a separate
> authorization to stream that data to a remote server if and when that
> is required.
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 10:10:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:25 UTC