EME design trivializes the demanded loss of control of security and privacy demanded.
Please provide a pointer to the spec text that should be changed.
Please revise the specification and I will review it. The onus is on the proponents not me.
This looks like a duplicate to me and the other bug has much more information.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 20965 ***
This is certainly a separate issue. Bug 20965 deals with the actual loss of control of security and privacy, and this bug deals with the trivialization of this loss of control.
Resolutions of bug 20965 would prevent the loss of control.
Resolutions to this bug would ensure that the user was well informed of the loss of control, and had explicitly consented to this loss of control, and that due diligence had occurred to make sure the user was competent (age, mental capacity, etc) to legally consent to the terms, etc.
> Resolutions of bug 20965 would prevent the loss of control.
Given this, there is nothing more to inform the user of. That is why I propose this bug be closed as a duplicate.
(In reply to comment #5)
> > Resolutions of bug 20965 would prevent the loss of control.
> Given this, there is nothing more to inform the user of. That is why I
> propose this bug be closed as a duplicate.
I agree that if bug 20965 is resolved then this bug is no longer relevant.
However bug 20965 has not been resolved, and I see no resolution in sight, so why did you close it?
The relationship to bug 20965 is not 'duplicate'. Your response above suggests you understand the real relationship, so it is not appropriate for you to be marking this as a duplicate.
I suggest that the appropriate action is to keep this bug open until bug 20965 is resolved in a way that technically avoids the loss of control of user security and privacy. Given the rhetoric of the proponents it appears most likely that bug 20965 will be closed as 'won't fix' and then this bug will be very important to address.
Added a note to the SOTD calling this out as an open issue as discussed in the telcon:
The task force doesn't yet completely understand the purpose of this bug and needs the reporter to propose specific text that will resolve it as requested in comment 1.
(In reply to comment #7)
> Added a note to the SOTD calling this out as an open issue as discussed in
> the telcon:
> The task force doesn't yet completely understand the purpose of this bug and
> needs the reporter to propose specific text that will resolve it as
> requested in comment 1.
The reporter has not responded with more specific information for over five months. I propose this but be closed without prejudice, and only permit its reopening if new specific information is provided.
Resolved without prejudice per meeting discussion: