871–880 of 990 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can one power up the camera for only a few milliseconds? Enough to take a still photo, without the LED getting bright enough for a human to notice?
This used to be a thing, where you’d flash the LED briefly and hope the user didn’t notice. But new Macs prevent this by having a minimum duration the light will remain on.
If there were an explicit confirmation asking me each time if I really wanted to allow camera access (like a delete file confirmation), I might consider not using a cover. And you can have a ‘don’t ask me again’ for this app option.
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…
I don't think I even mind, because you've also broken physics and very possibly found a way to generate unlimited electricity forever.
Unless there is an option to send higher voltage to the camera (control the VRM) and increase the current through the LED wear it off quickly for instance. The statement is incredible condescending, esp. given no link to actual schematics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can one power up the camera for only a few milliseconds? Enough to take a still photo, without the LED getting bright enough for a human to notice?
No, because the LED doesn't need nearly as much power as the camera. And it takes the camera more than a few miliseconds to start working.
You mean current, right? And it'd have current limit circuit, at a resistor but likely a slow start circuit entirely? Unless you share the schematics, it's an empty argument.
I was very skeptical of the camera covers, but then through conversations with some of my co-workers, I realized that they weren't being used because people were worried about spies secretly turning on the camera. It was 90% of the time just peace of mind that their camera was actually off, instead of having to find the sometimes hard to see options in video chat programs etc.
If my computer is compromised to the point where an attacker can access my camera and microphone, information from my camera and microphone are the least of my problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I use gaffer's tape. Sufficiently (for my standards) unlikely to fall off, and the better quality stuff is designed not to leave residue.
Half of my office has camera covers, honestly at this point I'd have a lot of respect for any maker who had a physical mechanism to their camera... Sort of like the original iSight https://www.coolsmartphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/is...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a physical lid is ugly and inelegant.
Dell elite books have very elegant camera shutters with a barely visible slide. But obviously this is beyond Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Because a physical lid is ugly and inelegant.