- From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 21:24:05 -0500
- To: "Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)" <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Device APIs Working Group <public-device-apis@w3.org>
I think that is too 'abstract' - not too clear what learning means. I'd suggest, "Being able to distinguish hardware support for vibration (or lack thereof) can contribute to the information allowing for fingerprinting, a privacy risk". If that isn't what is meant, then I think we need to be even more clear. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP) www.fjhirsch.com @fjhirsch > On Feb 2, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2016-02-02 14:16 GMT+00:00 Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>: > > On 01 Feb 2016, at 00:31, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > But won't it allow differentiation between various hardwares/settings, based on this method? > > If so, we can consider documenting it. > > You're right in that the most likely reason false is returned is that the vibration hardware is not present. This should be noted in the errata. Feel free to propose text. > > > How about: > > "In case of implementations or devices not providing access to the hardware vibration capability, the fact that the API allows learning this may be used to enhance fingerprinting of the user's system" > > Best > Lukasz > > > > > > > Thanks, > > -Anssi > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 02:24:34 UTC