Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling

[westhawk <[e-mail]>]

> On 1 Apr 2018, at 12:51, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 01/04/18 12:32, T H Panton wrote:
>> - I'm no GDPR specialist, but I think adding 'informed' above may be wise.
> 
> Luckily, I'm also not a GDPR specialist:-)

Giving literal consent is somewhat frowned on these days - hence ‘informed'.

> 
> But I think adding "informed" takes this further from reality and so is
> worse. (Further from reality in terms of me just not believing that ICE
> is understandable for a random user, and therefore consent of any kind
> to doing iCE, isn't possible, so informed consent is even less
> possible;-)
> 

Ah, that’s where we disagree. We don’t have to explain ICE -
(frankly almost no-one understands ICE
not even those of us who have implemented it.)
Just like we don’t explain the detailed risks of giving camera permissions.

But I do think we can give a better hint at what the area of risk is, fundamentally:
"do you trust this website with your (network) location?”

Whilst some of the detailed risks are shared with
“do you want to use your camera?” Not enough of them are IMHO.


> In general I'm not sure wordsmithing will help here - I reckon those of
> us in the rough (well, me at least), have a fundamental problem with
> the current state of implementations and with the basic idea in the
> draft so I don't think any simple wording change can solve that. (I'm
> not saying that to be difficult but to avoid us all wasting time
> thinking we can solve the problems via wordsmithing.)

Mmm, I think we differ, I’d rather give wordsmithing a try before we go back to square 1.

T.

> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>