Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#91

Post by 9dl »

dylan604 wrote: post #82
9dl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or I can close my eyes and imagine that nothing happened Result will be the same Stickers do not work - because people around you do not put it too magically And what even sillier - that someone have phone with installed fb app in 2k19

Why are you concerned if someone else does/doesn't do something? You can only control your own actions. Not protecting yourself by covering your webcam because the majority of others do not is not sound logic. I have a bright pink piece of tape over mine, and it is always a conversation starter. I have seen later that many people do wind up covering their webcam. It's not a 100% conversion rate, but it is definitely…

Why someone want defend corporations? Especially those which breaking law

What motivations of such people?

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#92

Post by Wowfunhappy »

And this is the problem with losing trust.

It's perfectly plausible that this could have been a bug. It could also have been some type of performance enhancement, e.g. initialize the camera in the background so you can begin a video call more quickly.

But do you believe them? Facebook has scourged any goodwill I ever had for them.

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#93

Post by dylan604 »

i'm no fan of FB, and do not have their apps installed. however, the rationale is that they initialize the camera so there is little delay when the user actually wants to use the camera, but the skeptics think the camera being initiated has a more nefarious purpose. scientific method would suggest these are testable theories to prove/disprove. could we not test the network traffic to see if a sudden spike in outbound data flows due to the camera data being sent to the mothership? is it possible that the app can analyze the video content locally on the device without needing to stream the video content back to the mothership? users with limited data plans would be destroyed by a constant "live" stream of video, but i am not hearing of these complaints in the wild.

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#94

Post by moooo99 »

dangus wrote: post #60
moooo99 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats what bothers me the most about my Samsung phone. Facebook came preinstalled and I cannot uninstall it. I can only deactivate (whatever that means). I don't use facebook, I actually never did. Its not the fact that I'm loosing a few MBs of storage that really bothers me, it's the fact that this is the facebook app.

You can uninstall it using ADB, even without rooting. Not a consumer-friendly solution but I’m throwing that out there in case you want to try it.

I think I'll try that. I guess that'll work for LinkedIn/Office as well? However, not sure if the BYOD policy will like that.

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#95

Post by 9dl »

wlesieutre wrote: post #86
9dl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your neighbors with hires full spectrum light camera pointed at your windows does not count Mhhh, okay

If I were Mark Zuckerberg, the sticker is the solution to my laptop camera, and buying up all of the adjacent houses is the solution to neighbors http://money.com/money/4346766/mark-zuckerberg-houses/

But you are not him

And you still need to control your data

And you can't do that now effectively

And if people will defend corporations and hide its fu we will newer live in better world

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#97

Post by Jill_the_Pill »

imchillyb wrote: post #79
nealdt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also nice reminder about that lovely photo of Zuck with a sticker covering up his webcam. Now why would he do something like that ... ?

Those persons stupid enough to leave a webcam uncovered when not in use deserve the consequences of their actions. Those who leave a microphone operational when not in use also deserve the consequences of their actions. Stupid people reap stupid rewards.

Turning off one's microphone is not so uniformly easy that failing to do so justifies the epithet "stupid." Sometimes you can only deny permission to use the microphone, not turn it off entirely. Sometimes permissions are reset in an update. With several devices on different platforms, it can be hard to keep track. And then, others around you may have their microphones on, and voice recognition seems to work.

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#98

Post by mattacular »

Liquix wrote: post #78
mattacular wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, battery usage is reported by app not by hardware function. It seems unlikely Apple would be willfully letting Facebook have special capabilities.

Not too long ago, the idea of the NSA & GCHQ working together to silently strong-arm tech giants to spy on their own citizens/customers was a laughable conspiracy theory. Then we learned about PRISM. Hard proof that Apple, Facebook, Google, and the NSA secretly collaborate to mass-collect data on US citizens. It's 100% reasonable (and perhaps in our best interest) to assume any large tech company will and does cater…

Yes, all that is true, and why I used the word "willful" in my comment.

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#100

Post by vonmoltke »

pc86 wrote: post #68
vonmoltke wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do it. My wife does it. My sister does it. The cameras at Bloomberg all had shutters, and I used it there as well. It's just good (paranoid?) OPSEC to defend against remote takeover exploits.

How does tape over a camera prevent remote takeover specifically?

It doesn't, obviously, and I never said it did. It prevents the camera from being used to surreptitiously record useful information when a machine has been remotely compromised. It's the same reason nothing with a transmitter is permitted in classified areas without specific authorization. Preventing a remote takeover is effectively impossible, but these steps reduce the usefulness of such an action (which is part of the defense against them).
Post reply on HN