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

Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

support.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 990 posts

Re: Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

#811

Post by atoav »

TwoBit wrote: post #772
throwaway373438 wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you manage to find a vulnerability in this system, I don't think I even mind, " Taking a quick photo doesn't illuminate the LED for long enough for a human to reliably notice. "because you've also broken physics " Or merely recognized the role of the human element. A shame, Apple was once good at this.

What does it look like if an app takes a series of photos once a second while shutting on and off the camera in between?

What if only the camera is allowed to shut itself down and never responds to such requests if they happen weithin the first one second after it has been powered on

Re: Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

#812

Post by ivanhoe »

Apple is completely missing the point. Primary reason to cover cameras is to avoid anything being recorded by accident, not just to stop hackers RATing you. Now with everyone working remote this has become even more important as it's super easy to get into the video conference with wrong settings and end up in an embarrassing situation. Activity LED doesn't help with this, when you see it damage is already done and Youtube is full of zoom bloopers to prove this. Of course, preventing hackers accessing your camera is just an extra feature. So I'll keep my cover on regardless what Apple says. I use just a piece of regular paper so it's not entirely blocking the light, light sensors work just fine, and also it's very thin so laptop shuts down normally without any problems.

Re: Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

#813

Post by notRobot »

pfranz wrote: post #720
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the LED burns out? Is there any redundancy?

I'm not sure I follow. If the LED burns out you're implying the camera would no longer work? I imagine they'd replace the whole camera module. I saw one for an older model on ifixit for $30. I'd probably try and snag one scrap. I'm not sure how often it comes up.

They mean how do we get warned that the camera is active if the LED burns out?

Re: Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

#814

Post by Existenceblinks »

Why is physical shutter not a standard? wait..

I don't trust hardware kill switch either; anything is not visible right in front of my eyes. Mass product don't expect normal people to technically know about circuit design.

How hard it is for a big tech company whose hardware suppose to be best in the market, to design a built-in thin cover .. like camera shutter that's invented very first days camera invented.

ps; by shutter, I don't mean an actual light collector functionality although .. it's hard to argue that.

For macbook mic, I use hot glue to seal it. It's pretty good at blocking sound wave (I tested it).

Re: Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

#815

Post by saagarjha »

moe wrote: post #804
saagarjha wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a little LED that lights up when they open. The door latch is controlled via software and so is the light, though I would assume in the case of power failure they'd unlock for fire safety reasons.

Ok. So there is not only a LED, but a physical latch. I think Apple's building security architect should have a conversation with their camera security architect.

I know where you were going with that, but the situation is different than what you’re trying to show. On Macs the light is on the path of the camera: if it is on the camera is, if it is not then the camera is not. Whereas with the door you might think that if it was latchless someone could just push it open when the light was off. The camera light is really a door alarm, not a door latch. (And as I just mentioned, doors with an alarm but no lock often do exist, usually for fire safety reasons).

Re: Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

#817

Post by mjevans »

dwd wrote: post #664
bloody-crow wrote: post #648

This statement has a number of issues. First, you have to trust Apple that the indicator _really_ can't be disabled. You also have to trust that there isn't a vulnerability Apple is not aware about that could allow rolling the camera without the light coming on. This has happened in the past [0] and there are known Apple products that are vulnerable, yet the statement never mentions this making you believe it's impos…

I had to switch on my camera for a video call for the first time yesterday. (I can usually get around it and do audio only) Removed the piece of electrical tape I had over the camera to find the image was completely blurry from the glue. Good to know if it ever falls off and I don't have tape to replace immediately.

This is why I use a smaller piece of normal clear tape UNDER the outer layer of tape to protect the lens from the glue.

Re: Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

#818

Post by harha »

It looks like Apples quest for even slicker devices has taken its next toll, both the MacBook retina and the original touchbar work fine with a cover.

The product line up is in a weird limbo between professional and luxury and it’s difficult to move away given the alternatives (I have Linux and Windows on my workstation, one needs a lot of attention to move beyond 95% working and the documentation just isn’t always good, the other is very annoying with ads and all sorts of stuff that is integrated and the lack of consistency) even though I miss my old thinkpad and appreciate how they think of business features like thinkshutter.

Re: Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera

#820

Post by minusSeven »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #715
bloody-crow wrote: post #648

This statement has a number of issues. First, you have to trust Apple that the indicator _really_ can't be disabled. You also have to trust that there isn't a vulnerability Apple is not aware about that could allow rolling the camera without the light coming on. This has happened in the past [0] and there are known Apple products that are vulnerable, yet the statement never mentions this making you believe it's impos…

> First, you have to trust Apple that the indicator _really_ can't be disabled. You also have to trust that there isn't a vulnerability Apple is not aware about that could allow rolling the camera without the light coming on. I have made this point several times throughout this thread, so I apologize for repeating myself: Every laptop Apple has manufactured in the last ten years has an LED connected to the same circu…

Why do I even have to trust Apple and physics here? Why can't Apple just provide a physical lid for the camera to disable it. Why even take that chance.
Post reply on HN