Live data from Hacker News

Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

larrysanger.org

81–90 of 200 posts

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#81

TVs and other gadgets that have no microphones or video cameras embedded in them should have a certification like "organic". "NoSpy Certified" or a similar trademark would be appropriate right next to the UL and CE marks.

Well, 'organic' as a certification doesn't really mean anything. And UL was kind of a joke from having dealt with them personally.

This is absolutely untrue. "Organic" is a regulated term by the USDA, requiring verification from an accredited certifying agency.

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re describing is possible and is done currently in corporate environments by forcing devices to accept a self signed cert that allows companies to spy on their employees traffic. Haven’t seen anything for the home market yet, and I’m not sure how you’d get a consumer IOT device to accept your cert.

Whenever the topic of MITM middleboxes comes up, there is usually a vehement opposition to them from much of the security community... while they bring up some valid points, I can't help but wonder if there is some deeper agenda behind that opposition, since these also seem to be the same people who are pushing the user-hostile walled gardens. (Personally have been using a MITM proxy on my network for over a decade.…

One of the ways to deal with IoT spying is with enforced standards so the end users doesn't rely on an untrusted black boxes in the 'cloud' for the services provided.

You should be able to firewall your smart toaster so it can only communicate with a service under your control. In particular a service the manufacturer has no control over.

Example for automobiles: OBD-II diagnostic ports.

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#83
post #69

It's interesting that no laptop vendor seems to have made a physical webcam cover included by default- to me that seems like a no brainer that most customers would benefit from. Edit: Thanks for all your comments. It seems that there a few vendors that do offer webcan covers by default now. Definitely will have to check those out.

Huawei has:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/25/17050098/huawei-matebook-...

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#84
post #69

It's interesting that no laptop vendor seems to have made a physical webcam cover included by default- to me that seems like a no brainer that most customers would benefit from. Edit: Thanks for all your comments. It seems that there a few vendors that do offer webcan covers by default now. Definitely will have to check those out.

I bought an aftermarket webcam cover that slides open or closed. After a few days, I realized I was always checking to see that it was closed. I went back to using a piece of black electrical tape because that way I KNOW it's blocked without having to check. Besides which it's cheaper. Anything to lower the cognitive load.

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#85

TVs and other gadgets that have no microphones or video cameras embedded in them should have a certification like "organic". "NoSpy Certified" or a similar trademark would be appropriate right next to the UL and CE marks.

Would "NoSpy Certified" also cover the NSA et al?

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#86
post #69

It's interesting that no laptop vendor seems to have made a physical webcam cover included by default- to me that seems like a no brainer that most customers would benefit from. Edit: Thanks for all your comments. It seems that there a few vendors that do offer webcan covers by default now. Definitely will have to check those out.

My Thinkpad T480s definitely has one. Just needs a switch to also block the microphone

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#87
post #69

It's interesting that no laptop vendor seems to have made a physical webcam cover included by default- to me that seems like a no brainer that most customers would benefit from. Edit: Thanks for all your comments. It seems that there a few vendors that do offer webcan covers by default now. Definitely will have to check those out.

It's worth to mention that Pursim Laptops have a hardware "kill switch" for microphone/webcam/Bluetooth/wifi

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#88
post #50

Janie Crane: “An off switch?” Metrocop: “She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!” —Max Headroom, season 1, episode 6, “The Blanks” https://www.maxheadroom.com/index.php?title=Episode_ABC.1.6:...

a real life blank reg here. I live in an RV operate a MESHNET and do everthing i can to foster a common persons free decentralized infrastructure. As mentioned elsewhere ive been taping cameras and stabbing microphones for years now.

“Computers know too much.”

— Blank Reg

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#89
Careful!

It's just as easy to make a faux off switch that actually just triggers it to disable itself in software. The switch needs to actually cut ALL power going to the camera hardware.

I remember some webcams having LEDs that were controlled in software so hackers were able to turn the LED off in code while still recording with the camera the entire time.

For now, I will still have my physical webcam cover on because hackers can't stop it from working without physical access to my machine.

That said, there isn't much interesting to watch if you really wanted a live feed of my webcam (other than frustrated looks on my face while I'm debugging the work issue du jour).

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, 'organic' as a certification doesn't really mean anything. And UL was kind of a joke from having dealt with them personally.

This is absolutely untrue. "Organic" is a regulated term by the USDA, requiring verification from an accredited certifying agency.

USDA organic allows non organic pesticides and herbicides. It's a joke of a standard.
Post reply on HN