3 ms·
How about not disabling it, but merely making use of it visible? (e.g. an icon or a notice in the addressbar) It would discourage reputable sites from abusing
by pornel 11y ago
How about not disabling it, but merely making use of it visible? (e.g. an icon or a notice in the addressbar)
It would discourage reputable sites from abusing it, because users would start asking questions why a news site wants a p2p/videoconference connection.
- SG- 11y agoIf there's security concerns then it should prompt the user to allow/deny as well as whitelist the site for the future with a setting that lets people disable WebRTC easily (not in some obscure area).
- michaelmior 11y agoWebRTC is not just for videoconferencing and I don't think it's obvious that there aren't any legitimate use cases.
- michaelmior 11y agoWebRTC is not just for videoconferencing and I don't think it's obvious that there aren't any legitimate use cases.
- hyperpape 11y agoBecause if you really need to be anonymous, it's not good enough to catch it being used after the fact. Notifying the user after the fact sometimes works for things that are nuisances, but isn't good for privacy/security (imagine if your browser would execute unsandboxed JS and show you an icon each time it did it).