Element Capture

[eladalon1983]

Hej TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of Element Capture.

A combination of pre-existing mechanisms (getDisplayMedia, Region Capture) already allows Web applications to capture a portion of the current tab as video MediaStreamTrack, robustly cropping away irrelevant pixels. Such videos can than be transmitted remotely; removing pixels not intended for sharing helps the sharing user's privacy, and prevents distraction by the receiving users. It also helps conserve compute and network resources.

Our new API, Element Capture, takes this a step further, allowing Web applications to remove unwanted occlusions. For example, if a private message notification appears over the shared region, it is possible to avoid capturing that message, which also avoids transmitting it remotely, and therefore helps uphold privacy guarantees implicitly made to the user, who had only intended to share the target-region, and not whatever happened to be drawn over it.

• Explainer: https://github.com/screen-share/element-capture/blob/main/README.md
• User research: N/A
• Security and Privacy self-review: https://github.com/screen-share/element-capture/blob/main/questionnaire.md
• GitHub repo: https://github.com/screen-share/element-capture/
• Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
  • Elad Alon, @eladalon1983, Google
  • Mark Foltz, @markafoltz, Google
  • Jordan Bayles, @baylesj, Google
• Organization/project driving the design: Google Chrome and Google Meet
• External status/issue trackers: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5198989277790208

Further details:

• [x] I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
• The group where the incubation/design work on this is being done (or is intended to be done in the future): Screen Capture CG
• The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done ("unknown" if not known): Screen Capture CG and/or WebRTC WG
• Existing major pieces of multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this design: TPAC 2023 SCCG / WebRTC WG joint meeting
• Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design: There are disagreements between Google and Mozilla on privacy concerns.
• This work is being funded by: Google

You should also know that...

Strong positive Web developer feedback for this feature was expressed on https://github.com/screen-share/element-capture/issues/3 and during Screen Capture CG meetings.

[torgo]

Hi - some pieces of feedback from our TAG breakout this morning where we reviewed this:

It seems like the explainer is very lean. We think that there are a number of issues that need to be more fully explored before we can be more sure about this proposal.

In the use case that you're sharing a specific content area to an embedded iFrame (the use case in the explainer) what is the permissions flow for this scenario? For example - in current screen sharing scenarios, the user may be prompted to share a tab, a window, or the whole screen. What would the user be prompted for in this case? Would they be able to choose an alternative sharing target such as an other tab or the screen or is it envisioned that in this case they would be constrained to only share content from the designated application?

Can this be treated like an extension to ViewPortCapture? We note that this sort of sharing carries similar security risks as that API, and the additional constraints on capture in that API might be better suited to this use case than the more general getDisplayMedia.

The proposed API starts by preparing to share the whole of the content, and then restricting it to a particular part - have you considered ways to start with the specific part to be shared instead? (How would this affect occlusion?)

You have a goal of avoiding occlusion, but what about elements that are partially-transparent? Would this capture what is rendered behind an element?

[eladalon1983]

(Note: Questions reordered to make the answers clearer, as later answers build on top of earlier ones.)

It seems like the explainer is very lean.

I aimed to make the explainer brief, and this article goes into more details and is more "instructive" in its tone. HTH?

You have a goal of avoiding occlusion, but what about elements that are partially-transparent?

Occluded content is "magic erased" from the capture as is occluding content. The article (link above) discusses this in detail, while the explainer, I acknowledge, only made passing and implicit reference to this fact ("frames produced on the restricted video track only consist of information from the target-element and its descendants"). Hope that's clear now. :-)

what is the permissions flow for this scenario? [...] What would the user be prompted for in this case?

This API builds on top of existing screen-sharing API, meaning that the permission flow remains entirely unchanged. An application would first call getDisplayMedia(...) or getViewportMedia() or any other past/future screen-sharing API, and the user would go through the usual selection process associated with it. It's only after this completes, if the user shares the (entire) current tab, that the Element Capture API can be invoked.

Can this be treated like an extension to ViewPortCapture?

That's an alternative approach that we have considered. But as of the time of writing, getViewportMedia() remains theoretical, several years after it was initially proposed. To ensure impact, we have shaped Element Capture to be agnostic of whether gDM, gVM or any other API produced the track which is being "restricted" by our new API.

[...] have you considered ways to start with the specific part to be shared instead?

I actually think that starting with the entire current tab, is a strength of the current API shape, because we lean on established methods to prompt the user to share something they know is compromising, and avoid giving them the false sense of security, that they are sharing "less". Imagine a user, for instance, sharing "just the X iframe" and not realizing that it could, at any moment, be navigated, or load cross-origin resources... But sharing the entire current tab, that's a concept users already understand, and they know that it requires elevated trust.

[matatk]

Thanks for your detailed reply @eladalon1983. The article you linked to answers several questions; thanks for that too. It would be really helpful for review, and future reference, if you could that content from the article into the explainer; it's OK to give a bit of the 'how to' info, as long as the explainer starts with the user needs being solved. That info, and the code snippets, helps to convey the intended API shape.

There are a couple of additional things that we'd really like to see in the explainer:

• Please could you include some info on whether elements that are outside of the viewport (i.e. elements that are not visible) would be capture-able? (Your info on display: none is noted.)

• We asked about Viewport Capture, and in your reply, you address this as one alternative that was considered. Please could you include an 'Alternatives considered' section in the explainer, and mention the rationale re Viewport Capture - and any other approaches that you considered?

Thanks in advance; we are looking forward to learning more about the above.

[matatk]

Hi @eladalon1983, we discussed this review in our call today - just checking if you have any feedback with respect to our comment/questions above?

[eladalon1983]

Apologies for taking some time here. I'll respond soon.

[eladalon1983]

I have updated the explainer; PTAL.

[martinthomson]

Regarding the name RestrictionTarget, please consider using a name that makes it clearer that this is related to (screen) capture. Those words are very generic. If that name were to appear outside of a capture context, it would not be clear what it means.

[matatk]

Thank you for the explainer updates, @eladalon1983. We are happy with this proposal overall, but please could you consider @martinthomson's concern above regarding the naming of RestrictionTarget?

We don't have anything further to add, so we'll close this. The "satisfied with concerns" status is to reflect that naming concern.