> At least these things should be purely optional and providing an > *easy* way to filter that data. (same for the geolocation stuff).
FWIW, I wouldn’t mind being involved in a discussion about this, if people want to seriously consider putting it behind a "user-permission prompt" (similar to geolocation) or "user-action requirement” (similar to webvr and some aspects of mobile video playing) of some sort. There has been discussion of this issue in the WebVR community, for example, noting that in WebVR, you don’t get any device reports without a user action requesting the “VR”. But, there is the tension between making the APIs usable, permission fatigue on the part of users, etc. On top of that, there is very likely a need to not just “ask once at the start” but toggle access to sensitive info on/off as the user uses a web app (e.g., in the experimental Argon4 “AR-enabled” web browser, we have the ability to toggle location data on/off at any time without having to reload). I think as we move toward exposing AR technology (like Tango, ARKit, Windows Holographic) in web user-agents, we may need to rethink how we obtain and manage the data user’s give to pages. I want the web to work well in these new application areas; but I also want the characteristics of the web we love (i.e., the ability to feel relatively safe as you move around and follow links) to survive as well. I believe that respecting user privacy and supporting their ability to control information flow may actually be the thing that makes the web a preferred platform for AR/VR, since the various platforms are giving all data to apps automatically, which create a “take it or leave it” attitude regarding privacy and sensor information. This is a major driver for me for how a WebAR api may structured. Anyway, if folks want to discuss this, let me know. We should probably move off this thread? _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
