Again, this is a complete misunderstanding. We are not requiring a button to 
start preview. We are requiring a button to start *capture*. No current camera 
app, of which I am aware, gets access to the preview data before the user 
actually starts recording or snaps a photo. This would completely undermine any 
notion of consent.

Serge

Sent from my iPhone, hence the typos.

On Apr 13, 2012, at 2:40, Ben Francis <[email protected]> wrote:

> CC jcarpenter
> 
> No mobile camera app I know of requires the user to press a button to start 
> an image preview prior to capturing an image, the "viewfinder" starts as soon 
> as you open the app. This requirement would really break the UX of the 
> current B2G camera app. Preventing UI elements being overlayed on top of the 
> camera video stream is also a big limitation for UI design.
> 
> For Open Web Apps, the user can grant access to the camera permission during 
> installation, and/or with a geolocation style request at the time of 
> accessing the camera (with an option to "always allow").
> 
> Ben
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Serge Egelman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think there's a huge misunderstanding here:
> 
> We're not advocating getting rid of the preview screen.  What we're
> advocating is that apps cannot receive camera data until the user has
> pressed the button (which is owned by the OS).
> 
> In the current state of the world, some apps do not show preview screens.
>  If this option is to remain, this is why the record button (and
> notification) need to have a trusted path.  An alternative would be to make
> the preview screen the trusted UI (and therefore enforce minimum/maximum
> dimensions).  However, we believe that this latter option would be more
> onerous on app developers.  Those that wish to include preview windows are
> more than welcome to.
> 
> serge
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Jason Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I'm not opposed to a trusted UI approach, but I don't think it is possible
> > to provide adequate functionality using a "take picture" button.  The
> > preview point is spot on.  Think about the camera apps people use - preview
> > is a universal feature among them.
> >
> > One solution might be to bundle the preview option into the take picture
> > UI - what happens now? That's basically reducing the typical access
> > confirmation modal with a button that does the same thing, but doesn't have
> > an option to "always allow".
> >
> > As an example of another (existing) camera permissions flow, look at
> > Flash.  They pop a settings dialog that can't be modified by the
> > application, and the user has an option to persist the granted access.
> >  Taking that one step further, on Apple laptops there is a *hardware*
> > indicator for camera access.  That is something users trust.
> >
> > Also notice that there really aren't any popular systems that are designed
> > to be secure from the ground up.  Users want an experience that works and
> > uses their device to its full potential *first*, and worry about security
> > after that need has been met.  For examples of this, look to Android's SD
> > security or iOS's lazy address book access control (or any iOS API access
> > for that matter).  When security comes at the price of usefulness, you
> > might want to think about how much security will matter if users return
> > their devices in favor of a phone that has expected features like a camera
> > viewfinder.
> >
> > I don't mean to specifically knock your point, however.  If there was a
> > way to use a trusted UI approach while still allowing for the features
> > developers need now (and to a reasonable degree in the future), then surely
> > that's the ideal path.  I just have yet to see a workable concept.
> >
> > At the very least, the typical permissions based approach gives the users
> > who genuinely care about their security rather convenient tools to manage
> > it.  Reading comments on the Android market does seem to confirm that this
> > group of users actively polices their apps to ensure they aren't being
> > duped.
> >
> > - Jason
> >
> >
> > Jason Miller
> > 519.872.0797 // developIT <http://developit.ca/> // Jason Miller 
> > Design<http://jasonmillerdesign.com/>
> > *Developer of amoebaOS <https://amoebaos.com/>, 
> > Shutterborg<http://shutterb.org/> &
> > more
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> /*
> I am Serge Egelman and I approve this message.
> 
> */
> _______________________________________________
> dev-b2g mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ben Francis
> http://tola.me.uk
_______________________________________________
dev-security mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security

Reply via email to