This seems filed as `defect` when the limitations are by design. The OP is expecting to do something RFP disallows because decisions made years ago that the MediaCapture API was too much of a fingerprinting vector. If folks here wish to relax these mitigations that's fine, but shouldn't it be marked `enhancement`?
> ... it doesn't make sense to protect against fingerprinting if a user is willing to give permission for camera and/or microphone access
You're suggesting the existing mitigations add no value? — I'm a bit hesitant to agree. Not every camera has a dead pixel, and it sounds a bit like the argument against fingerprinting mitigations in general (why remove bits when there are so many? lost battle etc.)
I sometimes wonder why we allow camera/microphone in Tor in the first place. I suppose it's a gray area with room for a lot of decisions.
Bug 1899736 Comment 36 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
This seems filed as `defect` when the limitations are by design. The OP is expecting to do something RFP disallows because decisions made years ago that the MediaCapture API was too much of a fingerprinting vector. If folks here wish to relax these mitigations that's fine, but shouldn't it be marked `enhancement`?
> ... it doesn't make sense to protect against fingerprinting if a user is willing to give permission for camera and/or microphone access
You're suggesting the existing mitigations add no value? — I'm a bit hesitant to agree. Not every camera has a dead pixel, and it sounds a bit like the argument against fingerprinting mitigations in general (why remove bits when there are so many? lost battle etc.)
I sometimes wonder why we allow camera/microphone in Tor in the first place. I suppose it's a gray area with room for a lot of judgement.
This seems filed as `defect` when the limitations are by design. The OP is expecting to do something RFP disallows because decisions made years ago that the MediaCapture API was too much of a fingerprinting vector. If folks here wish to relax these mitigations that's fine, but shouldn't it be marked `enhancement`?
> ... it doesn't make sense to protect against fingerprinting if a user is willing to give permission for camera and/or microphone access
You're suggesting the existing mitigations add no value? — I'm a bit hesitant to agree. Not every camera has a dead pixel, and it sounds a bit like the argument against fingerprinting mitigations in general (why remove bits when there are so many? lost battle etc.)
I sometimes wonder why we allow camera/microphone in Tor in the first place. I suppose it's a gray area with room for a lot of judgement.
I also wonder if Tor users understand the tradeoffs.