Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Labs Add-On Provides Video and Audio Recording From the Browser

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla Labs is working on an experimental add-on which enables video and audio recording in the browser. Anant Narayanan writes on the Mozilla Labs blog, 'The Rainbow add-on for Firefox is an early developer prototype that enables web developers to access local video and audio recording capabilities using just a few lines of JavaScript. The add-on generates files encoded in open formats: Theora (for video) and Vorbis (for audio) in an Ogg container. The resulting files are accessible in DOM using HTML5 File APIs, which may be used to upload them to a server.' Support for live streaming and WebM is planned for a future version of the add-on."

22 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Caerdwyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The sins of Flash are not forgiven by the sins of HTML5.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    2. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're one of those damn HTML5 lubbers, aren't you? \~

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    3. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Caerdwyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're one of those damn HTML5 lubbers, aren't you? \~

      Don't know yet, there's nothing to lub. Not much available in the real world to try with HTML5... ask again in two years. The lub may be hawt, or it may be like lub with a drunken frat boy (lots of tears and shortcomings and stains that won't wash out).

      But the point stands: whether HTML5 is good or bad is pretty much irrelevant to the inarguable fact that Flash is a security mess. Even if HTML5 turns out to be even worse, that doesn't make the current state of affairs with Flash acceptable. Adobe needs to get its act together, regardless of their competition's CERT alert count. The only bug counts their dev team should care about are their own.

      If a Chevy catches fire 20% of the time when you start it, and a Chrysler catches fire 10% of the time when you start it, that still doesn't make Chrysler OK or safe.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    4. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Funny

      A bit scary, indeed, but a bit of duct tape over the camera lens is always safest. Not that that will stop anyone hearing your moans... ;-P

    5. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uhhh...why EXACTLY would you want that? Now I know why Steve Jobs wants that, he has been in a pissed off at Adobe for awhile and doesn't care if H.264 is a patent troll's wet dream, because he holds some of the patents. But why would YOU or for that matter ME want this? We have enough trouble just getting all the major browsers to render the exact same page the same way, not to mention dealing with all the "JavaScript malware o' the day" holes that keep popping up, but why would you want to tie all this multimedia junk into your browser?

      You see the nice part about plugins is you don't have to have them if you don't want to, and even if you do it is pretty trivial to turn them off on a per site basis with something like ABP & NS. And bitch all you want about Flash, but you can drop pretty much ANY format into a flash container, including free ones like VP6 and WebM, while all I've seen pushed for HTML V5 is H.264, probably the most horribly patented minefield in the history of software patents. Also Adobe doesn't care if you package their stuff with FOSS, or even try to cook up something like Gnash, whereas MPEGLA has made it pretty clear you ship something with H.264 you better get out your checkbook, pretty much killing FOSS support. What good is HTML V5 if the websites can't be supported out of the box by anyone but the big three of Google, MSFT, and Apple?

      I think the main complaint is driven by from what I've heard is shitty support for flash on FOSS and Apple devices, but whereas Apple can afford to cut a check to MPEGLA and just pass the costs to users, as can MSFT I really don't see the advantage of switching one walled garden for the other. Now as far as performance all I can comment on is the Windows versions of flash, which currently play nicely even on this 1.8GHz Sempron, but personally I'd rather see projects like Gnash take off and then if Adobe don't get their code together maybe transition the web to something anybody can use like WebM. But considering how long it has taken us to get THIS far I don't know if tying all the video to the browser, especially using a format so patent encumbered is the right way to go. Am I wrong? Why would you prefer HTML V5? What are the real world (not "it'll be better sometime later") advantages and disadvantages of one VS the other? I really would like to know.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Re:so...uh... by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Funny

    how do i NEVER get this add-on?

    Use IE 6. ;)

  3. Recording Indicator by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like the OS to have a reliable (hard to crack) indicator to the user showing whenever any mic or camera HW is being accessed, like a red light in the Desktop manager display, and an easily readable display of the XML log of accesses.

    As it is I put metal foil tape over them now, disconnecting them physically when I can, and rely on external camera/mic peripherals that I plug in on demand.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  4. Re:so...uh... by Cougar+Town · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mozilla didn't get Firefox where it is by being morons. Just the fact that it's Mozilla tells me that if this is ever an official release, it's going to have some kind of user confirmation before allowing access to these things (if it doesn't already). The backlash would be too great if there wasn't, and this is just common sense for Mozilla. Bugs could show up that might allow some kind of malware to do it, but it's crazy to think that Mozilla would knowingly allow any site to just access your camera and mic without permission if this was meant to be widely used by regular people.

  5. Re:so...uh... by owlnation · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mozilla didn't get Firefox where it is by being morons.

    Hmmm... Mozilla didn't get Firefox from 0.0 - 2.0 by being morons. However, there's certainly some evidence of moronic behavior from 2.0 onwards. Their focus seems to have changed from usability to adding more and more features. And that's moronic, because that's exactly what killed Netscape.

    Only a moron would repeat history that way. Yet that does appear to be what they are doing.

  6. So what they're saying is... by euroq · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what they're saying is that the hackers will take your bank account credentials, AND your picture so they can print the credit card with it! Sweet, where do I sign up?

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  7. In Soviet Russia... by Penguinshit · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Web browses YOU!

    (c'mon: _somebody_ has to post this)

  8. Re:so...uh... by arielCo · · Score: 2, Informative

    this thing can turn on my webcam and upload the vids just because i clicked on a link?

    let me ask, how do i NEVER get this add-on?

    Got Flash? Yes it can, and guess what: there are settings for that, per site and global.

    Maybe the good boys at Mozilla thought of that too.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  9. Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District by catbutt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's absurd to think that they would allow any web page to capture video or audio without having a rock solid way of making sure the user actually wants to do that. I mean, browsers have had a "file upload" widget since practically day one. But never did they allow javascript to browse your hard drive and upload files without you explicitly telling it to.

    Same here. Even the most computer illiterate should be aware that having a browser able to do such a thing without the user's permission is crazy. Why is anyone, on Slashdot no less, even debating it?

  10. Re:so...uh... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're doing that because you're delusional. Sort of like how the sky is now red and Safari doesn't suck balls on Windows.

    Firefox is much more usable now than it was when I first started using it back when it was alpha and wasn't Firefox. 3.x and 4.x are continuing the evolution. It's hard for me to believe that a bunch of "moron" as you put it put together the second most popular browser. Even more shocking is that a bunch of morons are now leading the browser market.

  11. interesting by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, this sure is a clever way to push their tag video and audio codecs. If only everyone would invent something cool to get their formats accepted.

  12. Re:so...uh... by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Distinguish "add-on" from the browser itself. Extensions make FF useful. No likee, no installee, no problem.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  13. Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is not necessarilly a good idea to do everything in the browser.

    That's an understatement! Unfortunately, in the future we will be doing pretty much everything in the browser if the ISPs and **AA get their way. Total lockdown is their "final solution", and they'll most likely get it. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I believe these are the good old days -- enjoy them while they last...

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  14. Web must be two way, not consume-only, read-only by h00manist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, there is malware. But lets not censor people because their computer may be insecure. We do need to encourage people to produce and publish more. Too much of the web is becoming filler "content" for selling commercials, the same as television and magazines. They don't really care what content is or says, as long as it's attention grabbing it sells ads.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  15. Re:so...uh... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's hard for me to believe that a bunch of "moron" as you put it put together the second most popular browser. Even more shocking is that a bunch of morons are now leading the browser market.

    Popularity does not equal intelligence. Vastly more people are avid followers of professional wrestling than any branch of the sciences. While the OP rather overstates his point, yours has no merit at all.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  16. Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is not necessarilly a good idea to do everything in the browser.

    Damn straight. That's what emacs is for.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  17. Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... by BenoitRen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now if only people would understand why Firefox can't support proprietary codecs - nah, there's not enough intelligence for that.