4 ms·
I'm only going off some in-person dealing with folks behind WebRTC and they know that permissions suck and would hurt adoption and hence fight to make sure they
by MichaelGG 9y ago
I'm only going off some in-person dealing with folks behind WebRTC and they know that permissions suck and would hurt adoption and hence fight to make sure they don't happen.
They dismiss all privacy concerns with "you can't have privacy in a browser" and "fingerprinting will work anyways so we can't make it worse". It's head-in-sand approach to privacy and it's bad.
Even then, Firefox is simply wrong to tell people it'll use your proxy, then throw that out.
- lallysingh 9y agoLots of people in webrtc are critically concerned with the safety and privacy of their users.
- throwaway2048 9y agoobviously not that critically concerned if leaking sensitive information like this was required by the spec as drafted, and has remained uncorrected.
- MichaelGG 9y agoI'm not sure what that means. It was obvious this would be used for fingerprinting and leaks. The explained reasons for proceeding was that permission prompts for data channels would hurt usage, despite not having clear cases where we need P2P without letting users know. And none of this excuses overriding the user's expressed network connectivity. When this was brought up, they immediately jumped to the excuses that fingerprinting can't be helped. And many jumped to saying hey you should use Tor Browser anyway. Total capitulation. Maybe someone cared, but it's not the official stance from webrtc groups or browsers.