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

Re: Separating simple camera access and P2P authorization (was: Re: Clarification on media capture split between WebRTC and DAP)

From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:51:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4E4BFFB1.2000203@jesup.org>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 8/17/2011 12:09 PM, Adam Bergkvist wrote:

> On 17 augusti 2011 14:47, Rich Tibbett wrote:
>
>> The model is a reversal on previous thinking: provide an
>> unauthorized but tainted webcam/microphone view to the web
>> page and allow the user to elevate the permissions at their
>> discretion as and when they are requested by the web page.
>>
>> If we simplify to the point of sticky permission sets, does
>> that alleviate some of the concern? Once you've clicked the
>> telephony button the page can make as many calls as it likes
>> with the untainted Stream object.
> Hi
>
> Is it a serious privacy issue when you trust the AR application enough
> to run it? If it can't access the content in your video stream it would
> have to know other things like your position and orientation to overlay
> the proper information.
>
> In other cases when you give the web app access to, e.g. an image or
> video file with<input type=file>  you don't put any constraints on what
> the web app may do with it. If you don't trust the app you don't give it
> access to your data anyhow.
>
> I think an indicator in the browser chrome that shows if the camera/mic
> is hot, is good enough for version one.
We'll need to think how this works for typically frameless/chromeless
browsers, like mobile.

They may need to force visible chrome when the mic/camera are active,
restricting the page space available to the app. (Probably preferentially
a strip off one side, allowing the content to reflow normally.)

-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 17:54:19 UTC

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