- From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 05:22:34 +0000
- To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- CC: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:00 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > On 24/07/2013 12:00 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:50 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: >> Hi Cullen, >> >> To be clear: The JS is asking the browser to tell it whether access to the camera was denied by the user, or by the browser for reasons outside the control of the user. The former is a recoverable error, the latter is fatal. >> >> Do you see any privacy implications there? >> >> Sure. It tells the JS whether you have a potentially usable camera. >> >> That may or may not be a big deal, but it is certainly information leakage. > > Fair enough. So I guess the next question is: is this a big deal? > > I can tell you that from a developer troubleshooting point of view, exposing this information would be helpful. > > Gili The topic of leaking this type of information has been discussed for probably a few hours worth of meeting time over many meetings. I think many people consider it a pretty big deal. It relates to the whole finger printing browser issue if you are trying to find it. I realize that it might be hard to understand why without reviewing the minutes from the old meetings. And to be brutally honest, I have complained before that the minutes are so bad I can't figure out what happened at some of the meetings but the minutes are no worse than other WGs.
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 05:23:01 UTC