- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:17:01 -0700
- To: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABcZeBPU1RRUwh3tqKxEVyzaHOnreruoeAwgXZOYkL3MR_TtrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > well that's not the way that Firefox handles it. It returns > PERMISSION_DENIED (which is basically what I was asking for - thanks > Mozilla 8) ). And it doesn't cache your response by default (except if you > allow and it's using https I believe). > > So the two main WebRTC browsers are already behaving differently here 8/ > > Surely the spec IS the place to define consistent behaviour for browser? > Totally. I think given the current state of the spec Firefox wrong, however, so you should probably actually be filing a bug on Firefox. > This is not a major technical issue and it's not a very complex thing to > work out so I'm not sure why this is "a very long lever"? Isn't this sort > of consistency the thing we should be looking for? Otherwise it makes us > web developers have to jump through lots of UA sniffing hoops > Agreed. > And my original response was primarily to Cullen's comment that this was a > fingerprinting risk...and I still stand by my comments about that. > I don't actually think this is a fingerprinting issue so much as it is an issue of the user's intentions leaking out to the site, which isn't quite the same thing.... That said, I don't care that much. -Ekr roBman > > > On 25/07/13 13:17, Martin Thomson wrote: > >> On 24 July 2013 17:33, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote: >> >>> There is a real benefit to return a different error response based on >>> whether the user denied access or the system failed to gain access. >>> >> >> It turns out that the two are equivalent, 100%. Whether you knew it >> or not, telling Chrome[1] to reject a request for microphone access is >> something that is persistent. You are asking Chrome to reject all >> future attempts to access that microphone. So, when a site asks again >> later, it is YOU, not your browser that rejects the request. >> >> I can't believe the length of this thread. If you don't like the >> behavior of your browser, either change browsers, or ask the >> developers nicely to fix it. If, as I suspect is the case here, it's >> your users that inadvertently disadvantage themselves, the latter >> option might be the best approach, but changing the spec is a very >> long lever, and the wrong one in this case. >> >> [1] I don't want to pick on Chrome specifically here, but I know that >> is how they operate. >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 15:18:08 UTC